Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — WALES

Steel Making

Mr. Coleman: asked the Secretary of State for Wales when he next intends to meet the chairman of the British Steel Corporation to discuss the future of steel making in Wales.

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Nicholas Edwards): I have been in close touch with the chairman recently and will remain so.

Mr. Coleman: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the population of Wales is 5 per cent. less than of that of the United Kingdom, and that since 1979 we have sustained 33·4 per cent. of the total job losses of the United Kingdom steel industry, 42·4 per cent. of the loss of steel production and more than 70 per cent. of the loss of steel making capacity? When the right hon. Gentleman meets the chairman of the British Steel Corporation, will he point those facts out to him as evidence of the way in which the British steel industry, particularly in Wales, has been haemorrhaging away? Are the reports that appeared over the weekend about investment in the steel plant at Port Talbot accurate? [HON. MEMBERS: "Speech".] It would be a most necessary morale booster to the industry.

Mr. Speaker: I hope that future questions will be briefer. Otherwise, we shall not even have half a dozen.

Mr. Edwards: I do not want to anticipate the statement to be made by my right hon. Friend later today. We have some of the most efficient and competitive steel plants in the country. The Oppostition's anxiety about the closure of major steel making plants has been strange in recent weeks. I know of no such proposals. The hon. Gentleman is right to emphasise the importance of on-going investment. I shall be happy to stand by the Government's record on that when all the information is available in the corporate plan.

Mr. John Morris: Was it the Minister or a member of his staff who briefed the Western Mail recently to the effect that a new hot mill for Port Talbot would be announced and claimed personal credit for the Minister's involvement in all meetings about steel over the past couple of months—but couple of months only? If the leak is true, why can there be no announcement, or are the Government still waiting for EC approval for the new mill at Port Talbot?

Mr. Edwards: The one person who clearly cannot claim any credit is the right hon. and learned Gentleman, from whom we have not heard a squeak about new investment in recent weeks. It is clearly true that investment and modernisation of steel plants is of the greatest importance. There is, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, a specific proposal from the British Steel Corporation for the modernisation of the hot mill at Port Talbot. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had better await the statement later today for the details.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Has the Secretary of State noted the chairman's oft-repeated remark to the effect that the industry's present predicament is due to the loss of home markets? If he has, why does he not, urge upon his colleagues the need to provide a measure of protection for some of our vital industries, particularly the car industry, because if that were to happen the fortunes of the steel industry would be changed overnight?

Mr. Edwards: The chairman has repeatedly made it clear that our competitiveness in the market generally at home and abroad is what is important in the British steel industry. I always find it extraordinary to hear the hon. Gentleman urging us to impose import restrictions, because I know that at least a dozen major international companies in his constituency depend on export business for a large share of the employment that they provide. I could list those companies if the hon. Gentleman is so ignorant that he does not know of them.

Mr. Grist: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, far from protectionism saving jobs, the protection of certain elements of our industry has made the British Steel Corporation less competitive, and therefore less able to preserve jobs in the industry and down market in the engineering industry?

Mr. Edwards: There is no doubt that the future of this industry, as of other industries, depends upon competitiveness. Nothing could be more disastrous to the British motor car industry, or other steel users, than if our steel industry were protected in such a way that industrial costs were raised generally.

Employment Statistics

Dr. Roger Thomas: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what are the latest available unemployment figures expressed numerically and as a percentage in the Lampeter/Llandyssul and the Cardigan travel-to-work areas; and how they compare with those for the same month in 1979.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: On 11 November 1982 the figures were 1,225 or 21·2 per cent. and 684 or 19 per cent. respectively. In November 1979 the number of registrants unemployed was 750 or 13·4 per cent. and 500 or 13·6 per cent. respectively.

Dr. Thomas: In the light of those figures, which emphasise the chronic nature of unemployment in the area, when the right hon. Gentleman announces the roads programme in early 1983 can we expect a substantial investment to improve the roads between the Teifi valley and the A40 and A48 in South Wales, to relieve this much beleaguered area?

Mr. Edwards: I cannot anticipate any specific road improvements to that part of the hon. Gentleman's


constituency. He will know that the major improvements to the road link along the M4 west into west Wales are already of considerable benefit to that part of Wales as well as to the other areas that are affected.

Mr. Geraint Howells: Why, during the past 10 years, have successive Governments failed to solve the unemployment problem in the Teifi valley?

Mr. Edwards: Particular problems attach to a rural area of this kind, but the problems in this instance are by no means exceptional and do not compare unfavourably with many others, particularly those in industrial areas, where the numbers are very much greater. The DBRW has an energetic programme in the area, and its new grant scheme will help. In addition, a number of advance factories are available. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be the first to agree that the DBRW is doing good and constructive work and is helping to tackle the problems of mid-Wales.

Wales Tourist Board

Mr. Hooson: asked the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met the chairman of the Wales Tourist Board; and whether changes in future tourism policy were discussed.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: I meet the chairman regularly. The last occasion was on 10 December when, together with members of the board, we discussed a range of issues, including the board's priorities for 1983–84.

Mr. Hooson: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that sufficient Government funding for tourism will be available in the coming year to meet the need?

Mr. Edwards: At the meeting on 10 December I pointed out to the board that the developments that have taken place in the urban programme under the UDG scheme mean that there has been a substantial increase in available resources for the tourist industry. I cannot anticipate exactly which applications will be accepted under the UDG scheme, but if a number of them are, there could be a substantial proportionate increase in the total finance available for the tourist industry in Wales.

Mr. Hudson Davies: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the contribution that can be made by tourism in many parts of Wales is significantly greater than the contribution that can be made by manufacturing industry? Is there not still a wide disparity between the sums available for tourist activities and those available for manufacturing industry, and is not that a gross distortion of the needs of certain rural areas?

Mr. Edwards: The financial support and other arrangements for the tourist industry are currently being reviewed. However, specific applications before me at present illustrate that the total financial package available for specific projects can be very substantial indeed.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: Exactly what role has the right hon. Gentleman's Department played in this review? Has there been an independent assessment within his Department of the role of the Wales Tourist Board, particularly overseas, or has that been subsumed by the review that has been undertaken by the Department of Trade?

Mr. Edwards: The two things are taking place in parallel. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State is

working closely with the Under-Secretary of State for Trade on the overall review. I have maintained discussions with the Wales Tourist Board about the strategy document that it is preparing. It hopes to submit a final version of that document, which will be the basis for discussion, early in the new year.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the admirable success of the Wales Tourist Board in improving the image of Wales as a tourist destination has to some extent been at the expense of cheaper family holidays at the bottom end of the market? Will he encourage the board not to forget that many hundreds of thousands of families like to take a cheap holiday and would like facilities at the bottom end to be improved with the assistance of the tourist board?

Mr. Edwards: That is absolutely right. Some of the recent improvement schemes sponsored by the tourist board in some of our older seaside resorts have precisely that object in mind, and the opening of the new tourist office in London will be an added spur to encourage that kind of tourism in Wales.

A55 (Dual Carriageway)

Sir Anthony Meyer: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what is the latest estimated date for the completion of dual carriageways on the A55 from the English border to Holyhead.

The Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Michael Roberts): It is my hope that, subject to the satisfactory completion of all statutory procedures, the dual carriageway A55 can be completed from the English border to its termination at Bangor by the end of the decade. Our proposals for improvements to the A5 in Anglesey will be announced in the next edition of "Roads in Wales", which will be published in the new year.

Sir Anthony Meyer: As my hon. Friend is aware, my hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Best) has been pressing hard for the improvement of the A5. As to the A55, is he aware that this Administration will be remembered as the one who took the decision over which previous Administrations dithered, particularly with regard to the Hollywell bypass and the Conwy crossing?

Mr. Roberts: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We have made real and visible progress towards our goal. About 23 km of the 87 km route between Chester and Bangor have already been completed to dual-carriageway standard, and 24 km are currently under construction. However, a portion of the 23 km that are now completed was prepared by the previous Administration.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: When this road is operational in 1990, will the Minister ensure that access from the south is also improved—in other words, the sections of the A470 that have not been upgraded between Blaena Ffestiniog and Betws-y-Coed?

Mr. Roberts: I shall take the hon. Gentleman's point into consideration and write to him.

Mr. John Morris: Will the Minister reject the suggestion that there has been dithering over the improvement of the A55? I immediately accept the Minister's commendation. As to the Conwy crossing, does he agree that every decision affecting the east and west was


made but that there was a need for a further and proper inquiry before a Bill could be presented to Parliament? That has now been done, and I compliment the Secretary of State on doing it.

Mr. Roberts: I do not wish to comment on the dithering nature of the previous Administration. I merely note that the decision on the Conwy tunnel was made entirely by my right hon. Friend.

Employment Statistics

Mr. Anderson: asked the Secretary of State for Wales how many persons were in full-time employment in Wales in May 1979 and how many at the latest available date.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: Figures based on the census of employees in employment indicate 860,000 in June 1979 and 724,000 in June 1982, but other surveys suggest that these do not give a full picture of the employment situation.

Mr. Anderson: Surely those figures are on a comparable basis. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that at the time when he assumed office in May 1979 the number of employees in employment in Wales was at an all-time high, whereas at present it is at an all-time low since records were begun on that basis in 1948?

Mr. Edwards: There is increasing evidence that the quarterly series is not giving a full picture of what is happening. The labour force survey and the 1981 census data suggest that the registration of new small businesses and the numbers of self-employed have not been recorded properly. It is clear that the unemployment figures and the numbers in employment tell the same story—that we are at present suffering severely from the recession.

Mr. Tom Ellis: As Wales has for too long been dependent on old, basic industries such as steel, coal and agriculture, what is the Secretary of State doing to persuade the Welsh Development Agency to undertake direct entrepreneurial activities to introduce new industry, particularly advanced technology industry, into Wales?

Mr. Edwards: I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman's basic assessment, and he will know that we have had considerable success in getting the new factories that we have been building occupied by some of the newer industries. That is important for the future. He will also know that under its former chairman the Welsh Development Agency started reviewing its strategy and that at one stage of its development it launched its new Hafren Investment Company. The new chairman, who has only just taken over, is obviously taking a fresh look at the strategy and is having detailed discussions about it with me.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that most of the people I meet in Wales want the Government to make much greater efforts than they are making to bring down unemployment? Is he also aware that those people have no confidence whatever in the policies put forward by either of the Opposition parties, because they will not bring down unemployment?

Mr. Edwards: Clearly, a policy based on a substantial devaluation and major expenditure programmes, without an adequate incomes policy, would lead to high inflation and, later, to high unemployment.

Mr. Barry Jones: Are not the figures that the right hon. Gentleman has given very disturbing for everyone who lives in Wales? Why is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to remain the chief apologist for the deindustrialisation of Wales?

Mr. Edwards: Of course the figures are disturbing, but to talk of deindustrialisation, bearing in mind that there has been an all-time record number of factory allocations and a rapid build-up of new business, shows a complete failure to understand what is happening. The hon. Gentleman need only look at the Deeside industrial estate to see that what he says is absolute nonsense.

Mr. Wigley: Does the Secretary of State accept that, whatever method of counting is used, the total number of people in employment in 1978, compared with the similar figure for 1982, shows a drop of about 60,000 to 70,000, and that that implies that those 60,000 to 70,000 people have either left Wales or have dropped out of economic activity? Should not that figure be added to the increase in unemployment since this Government came to office? Will he confirm that?

Mr. Edwards: Information arising from the labour force survey and the 1981 census leads us to think that there are probably about 800,000 people in employment in the United Kingdom as a whole who are not included in the figures based on the census of employees to which I referred. If a reasonable proportion of that number is applied to Wales—the kind of proportion that one generally gets in these matters—the gap is not that described by the hon. Member.

Mr. Alec Jones: Does the Secretary of State agree that a series of parliamentary answers and the statistics published by the Department of Employment show, first, that the number of people in employment in Wales rose by 30,000 comparing 1974 with 1979, and, secondly, that that figure has fallen by 145,000 since the right hon. Gentleman became responsible for Wales? Does that not show that he has succeeded in destroying more jobs in Wales than were created by 20 years of regional policies? Instead of listing the number of new jobs, will he publish a balance sheet showing how many jobs he has destroyed and how many jobs he has really created?

Mr. Edwards: I do not believe that the people of Wales are in the least impressed by statements such as the one just made by the right hon. Gentleman, who suggests that the present problems are entirely the result of policies of this Government, or have occurred regardless of the world recession, or of the disastrous policies that were pursued by previous Governments—which have destroyed our industrial competitiveness—or the increases in wage costs which the right hon. Gentleman encouraged and set in train.

Hill Farming

Mr. Geraint Howells: asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he is satisfied with the state of hill farming in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Nicholas Ewards: While we are always seeking improvements, I am pleased to say that in 1981–82 trends in costs and prices suggest that incomes on hill and upland farms in Wales rose substantially in real terms, compared with the previous two years. I expect a further increase in 1982–83.

Mr. Howells: Will the Secretary of State confirm that an application has been made to the Commission in Brussels to extend the less favoured areas in Wales? When does he hope to implement the scheme?

Mr. Edwards: Yes, Sir. A submission has been made. I cannot forecast how long it will take to complete our discussions with the Commission.

Mr. Hooson: Is my right hon. Friend confident that the British Government will be prepared to match the sums that may be available from the European Commission in payment for this scheme?

Mr. Edwards: Clearly, we have put in a submission because we believe that we need to help marginal land areas. When we have the Commission's conclusions, we shall reach our decisions on public expenditure in the normal way.

National Coal Board (Investment)

Mr. Ray Powell: asked the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his reply to the right hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Jones) on 22 November, Official Report, c. 567, what proportion of the National Coal Board's investment was in the Welsh coalfields.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: In broad terms, the Welsh share of investment was about 5 per cent.

Mr. Powell: Is the Secretary of State aware that the NUM has called a strike for 17 January because of the lack of capital investment and the general rundown and threat of pit closures? What, if anything, does he intend to do to try to avoid that strike? When will he take a stand on behalf of the Welsh coalfields similar to that taken by his Cabinet colleague the Secretary of State for Scotland on behalf of the steel industry?

Mr. Edwards: Certainly none of my colleagues is standing up to support a substantial drain on resources from loss-making industries. We have a problem, which is well understood, and it goes back a long time in Wales. Last year 40 per cent. of the National Coal Board's loss came from the Welsh field. In the first six months of this year the field lost £66 million, which is about £17 per tonne of coal. Clearly, it must be for the NCB to use the record resources given to it for capital investment to create a modern and effective coal industry in the way that it thinks fit.

Mr. Grist: Can my right hon. Friend fathom out how a strike in the South Wales coalfield could possibly convince anyone to put any more money into it?

Mr. Edwards: A strike would be disastrous for the South Wales coalfield, as strikes of that nature always are. This Government committed £722 million for coal investment last year, and they have given the industry nearly £2 billion for deep mining investment. That is nearly double the investment that was made during the last three years of the Labour Administration. It is for the NCB to decide how to make the most productive use of that investment.

Mr. Ioan Evans: Does the Secretary of State realise that he should be in the Cabinet representing Welsh interests? Does he appreciate the strong feeling in Wales that he is an apologist for Thatcherite policies, instead of defending the interests of jobs in Wales? Will he meet the

NCB and ensure that a greater share of the investment in the coal industry in Britain goes to the Welsh coalfields, including the anthracite pits, the coking pits, and the Phurnacite plant in my constituency?

Mr. Edwards: I do not consider that I am defending Welsh interests in defending a continuing loss of £66 million in a half-year. It is my job to encourage the NCB to take the measures that it believes are right to improve the productivity and efficiency of the coal industry in Wales, as elsewhere.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Is it not a fact that coal industry jobs in Wales, like coal industry jobs elsewhere in the United Kingdom, depend on concentrating resources on those pits that can be made profitable and competitve?

Mr. Edwards: Clearly, if the industry were not likely to lose about £125 million in the present year in Wales there would be much more money available for investment. We must go down the twin roads of investing and reducing losses. Inevitably, that will mean some closures of the older and more difficult pits in Wales, as elsewhere.

Mr. Rowlands: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one of the reasons for the better productivity in Welsh pits has been the capital investment in these areas? Will he confirm that there has been a real capital investment cut during the past three years in the Welsh coalfields of 40 per cent? Is he aware that that is responsible for the deep sense of frustration now felt in Welsh coalfields?

Mr. Edwards: I understand the anxieties and frustration, but the Welsh share of investment at present is about £33 million, and substantial modernisation is going on. It must be for the National Coal Board to decide where it can make the best use of the record sums that this Government have made available for coal investment.

Mr. Coleman: May I encourage the Minister to look to the future and support the need for substantial investment in new sources of coal production in South Wales as a means of ensuring that, when natural gas supplies run out, there will be adequate coal production to take up the need for gas? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that such a provision should be made now rather than left until we are in a crisis?

Mr. Edwards: As the Government have doubled the capital resources available to the coal industry they are clearly guaranteeing it a sound future—if it is not destroyed or disrupted by unnecessary strikes. I do not intend to dictate to the NCB where it should place that investment.

Employment Statistics

Mr. Roy Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what is the latest figure of the number of males unemployed in Newport, Gwent; and what percentage of the male working population in Newport this represents.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: On 11 November male unemployment in the Newport travel-to-work area totalled 10,224, or 18·0 per cent.

Mr. Hughes: Does the Minister appreciate that that figure of 18 per cent. compares with the official figure of 7·1 per cent. in May 1979—an increase of over two and a half times for Newport? Is that not a catastrophic


indictment of the Government's policies and will not Saatchi and Saatchi have a lot of explaining to do at the next general election?

Mr. Edwards: The male unemployment problem is severe in this area, as elsewhere. However, it must be said that it is a lot less severe than in some other areas. The prospects for Gwent are extremely good, not least because there has been a major capital programme of factory building as well as the arrival of large new concerns such as Mitel, close to the hon. Gentleman's constituency, and the Inmos project, which I am confident will produce a large increase in employment in the coming months.

Unemployment Statistics

Mr. Barry Jones: asked the Secretary of State for Wales by what total unemployment has risen in the county of Clwyd and in Wales since May 1979.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: Between May 1979 and November 1982 the number of unemployed claimants in Wales increased by 95,203. In Clwyd between May 1979 and October 1982 the number of registered unemployed increased by 13,779. Between October 1982, when the new basis of count was introduced, and November 1982 the number of unemployed claimants increased by 260.

Mr. Jones: What is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to do to help my constituents at Courtauld's Deeside mill in Flint who will start the new year on the dole? Does the Secretary of State know that the Government have allowed more than £260 million worth of man-made fibres to enter Britain? Can we have some action rather than bluster?

Mr. Edwards: I well appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern about that plant. My Department is in close touch with Courtauld's management about the matter. I understand that an urgent appraisal of the position is currently being undertaken in the light of the plant's order book and it would not be helpful for me to comment further on the immediate outlook until that appraisal is completed. Deeside is a special development area. I recently announced that Flint is to be designated as the site of the second enterprise zone in Wales. Every possible assistance will be given to any new investment project undertaken by Courtauld's or any other company in that area.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Clwyd, which once had the lowest rate of unemployment, and now has the highest, has a special problem, which derives largely from its past overdependence on certain basic industries, notably steel, and that it was the failure of the Labour Government to deal with the problems arising from the closure of steel plants in good time that has caused this problem to arise in an acute form at the worst possible moment?

Mr. Edwards: It is because we are moving away from that over-dependence that I welcome the variety of projects coming to the area, including the BICC/Corning fibre optics project, Squibb Surgicare, health care manufacturers, Kimberley Clarke, paper tissues, Pendy Plastics and Deeside Titanium. That is a measure of the variety of new industry in the area.

Water Authorities (Dispute)

Mr. Wigley: asked the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to the answer of 20 October, c. 135, whether he is yet in a position to make a statement on the determination of the dispute between the Welsh water authority and the Severn-Trent water authority concerning the level of payment which should have been made by the latter authority in the financial year 1982–83 for water which it obtains from Wales.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and I issued our decision on this matter on Monday 13 December 1982.

Mr. Wigley: Is the Secretary of State aware of the complete dismay that is felt in Wales at the failure of his Department, after 15 months of dithering, to obtain a settlement to help Welsh water ratepayers? Is he aware that the implication of that is that there will be an increase of 15p on the water rates next year? How, in all conscience, can he allow the Welsh water authority to go on with its work when he does not stand up and defend it? As he has completely failed to defend the interests of Wales, should he not now resign?

Mr. Edwards: I am not clear whether the hon. Gentleman stands by his party's claim that the Welsh water authority should charge £44 million for the water that is exported to Severn-Trent, when the Welsh water authority believes that the most it can possibly charge, without provoking alternative investment by Severn-Trent, is £2½ million. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that if the full claim were met it would make a difference of about £1 on the average £79 water rate bill in Wales? That is the cost of about one and a half pints of beer.

Mr. Alec Jones: Does the Secretary of State's decision not even to allow the modest claim of the Welsh water authority to increase its charges to Severn-Trent, coupled with the Government's decision to abolish the Water Charges Equalisation Act 1977, mean that the Government have abandoned all attempts to bring the Welsh water authority's charges more into line with the average charge throughout England and Wales? Does it mean that as long as we have a Tory Government there will never he a fair deal for Welsh domestic water consumers?

Mr. Edwards: It means that we have rejected the proposition that the Welsh water authority should be allowed to charge what it could get away with without forcing a major capital investment to duplicate existing resources. The importance of the matter should not be exaggerated when, at the most, we are talking about a difference of about £2 million on running costs of over £150 million. As I say, the difference on the average water ratepayer's bill is the cost of one and a half pints of not very good beer.

Sir Raymond Gower: In a long-term assessment of the problem will my right hon. Friend reflect that for many important public services—electricity, postal, and so on—the charges are uniform throughout the United Kingdom? Is there any valid reason why there should be this wide disparity in water charges in different parts of the United Kingdom?

Mr. Edwards: It is possible to pursue that argument but, equally, the charge to the Welsh ratepayer for sewage disposal might be increased to match that of his English


compatriot and the average domestic rate bill would be considerably higher than it is at present. The Welsh ratepayer pays a much lower rate bill than his English compatriot.

House Renovation Grants

Mr. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what was the level of expenditure on house renovation grants in the first six months of the current year; and how this figure compares with the figure for the first six months of last year.

Mr. Grist: asked the Secretary of State for Wales how much has been spent on house renovation grants in Wales in the first half of the current financial year; what were the figures for the previous three years; and if he will make a statement.

The Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Wyn Roberts): Expenditure on house renovation grants, in the first half of 1982–83 was £13·9 million compared with £6·7 million in the first half of the last financial year. Expenditure in the whole of 1981–82 was £17·2 million, in 1980·81 £14·0 million and in 1979–80 £13·7 million. If, as I expect, the present trend continues, total expenditure in this financial year is likely to exceed £30 million. Therefore, it is clear that the 90 per cent. grant rate which now applies to intermediate and repair grants is having a dramatic effect, which is why we recently extended this measure for the whole of the next financial year. We have introduced special arrangements in this and the next financial year which will help all Welsh local authorities to meet the demand for grants, the need for which is amply illustrated in the Welsh house condition survey published last month.

Mr. Knox: I welcome the doubling of expenditure in the first six months of the current year compared with the previous year. May I ask what further steps my hon. Friend intends to take in view of the findings of the latest house condition survey?

Mr. Roberts: Some aspects of the survey, such as the fall in the number of houses lacking basic amenities, are encouraging. However, as my hon. Friend suggests, there is a great deal still to be done. As I said, we have extended the period of the 90 per cent. repair and intermediate grants to 1984. We have also started the enveloping initiative, which should provide local authorities with a fast and direct means of getting to grips with the problem of the decaying housing stock. The poor condition of the houses in which so many old-age pensioners live is causing us a great deal of concern, and we are considering ways of helping them more effectively.

Mr. Grist: Is my hon. Friend aware of the great importance that Cardiff attaches to such renovation grants? Many houses that were built 70 or 90 years ago have reached the point at which if they are not saved they will fall into complete disrepair. What co-operation is my hon. Friend getting from local authorities in the Principality?

Mr. Roberts: I urge all local authorities to meet the demand for grants with all the vigour that they possess. Some councils are refusing to issue the necessary application forms, or are making difficulties about them. I condemn them, as well as those that limit the availability

of grants or the percentages available for the various categories of grant. It is vital that all those who apply for grants should be considered.

Mr. Coleman: When making allocations to local authorities for housing improvement grants, does the Minister take into account the number of unfit dwellings and the number of those that lack one or more basic amenities in each local authority area?

Mr. Roberts: Of course such matters are taken into account. In addition, a local authority's allocation of those grants is taken into account when deciding the future allocation.

Manufacturing Industry

Mr. Tom Ellis: asked the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met representatives of Welsh industry to discuss the state of Welsh manufacturing industry.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: I and my hon. Friends frequently meet representatives of industry to discuss a wide range of matters.

Mr. Ellis: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the need—which we all accept, and to which he referred—for high productivity in manufacturing industry? Given that the most immediate and effective way of achieving high productivity is to produce to full capacity, what are the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues doing to stimulate demand so that Welsh manufacturers can produce to capacity?

Mr. Edwards: There is no shortage of demand at present. All the figures for the pre-Christmas period show that there is a major upturn in retail demand. One of the problems is whether our industry can compete effectively with imports and retain a proper share of the market.

Secondary School Pupils (Science and Mathematics)

Mr. D. E. Thomas: asked the Secretary of State for Wales whether he is satisfied with the performance of secondary school pupils aged 15 years in science and mathematics; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Michael Roberts: Clearly there is cause for concern, and I fully recognise this, although we must be careful to keep matters in perspective. A great deal of work is going on at both local and national level to encourage improvements in levels of performance.

Mr. Thomas: As the recently published report of the assessment of performance unit confirms that school pupils in Wales are doing worse in science and mathematics at 15 than they were at 11, is it not time for an independent inquiry into the way in which Welsh secondary schools teach mathematics and science?

Mr. Roberts: It is always an attractive proposition to hold an inquiry. However, we have considerable evidence about the teaching of mathematics and science and we do not want to have to wait for a further inquiry. Meanwhile, Her Majesty's Inspectorate is promoting the message of the Cockcroft report. This year we published a consultative document on science education in schools, and we are analysing the response. We must not be complacent, but we must remember that in the past two years there has been an improvement in the achievements of Welsh pupils taking GCE mathematics at O-level.

Mr. Tom Ellis: What proportion of the teachers who entered the profession between 1965 and 1975 had O-level mathematics?

Mr. Roberts: I cannot give the figures for that. Unfortunately, a number of teachers joined the profession without O-level mathematics when there was a shortage of teachers' and they subsequently taught mathematics. We have put that right and made a mathematics qualification essential for entrance to the teaching profession.

Welsh Water Authority

Mr. Ioan Evans: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received regarding the reorganisation of the Welsh water authority.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: Since the reorganisation I have had no formal representations about the organisation of the authority as such. I have, however, received some representations about membership of the local consumer advisory committees.

Mr. Evans: Is it not a fact that all the local authority associations have complained about the Water Bill now in Committee and that opposition has also come from local authorities in Wales? In view of the deep anxiety about the water charges problem in Wales, what will the Government do to replace the Water Charges Equalisation Act 1977 which is being removed by the Bill?

Mr. Roberts: We would expect to get representations from the local authority associations about the Bill, because one of its aims, as the hon. Gentleman knows, is largely to remove local authority representation from the water authorities themselves on to local advisory committees, where we believe the local authorities are best placed to represent their electorate. With regard to charging, the aim of the Water Bill is to create more efficient authorities. That efficiency, more than anything, will reduce charges.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

National Minimum Stipend

Mr. Chapman: asked the hon. Member for Wokingham, as representing the Church Commissioners, what amount and percentage increase there has been in the recommended national minimum stipend for incumbents between April 1979 and April 1982.

The Second Church Estates Commissioner, Representing the Church Commissioners (Sir William van Straubenzee): Between April 1979 and April 1982 the recommended national minimum stipend for incumbents increased by £2,200 to £5,500 per annum. This represents an increase of 66⅔ per cent.

Mr. Chapman: Will my hon. Friend confirm that that increase is well above the rate of inflation during the comparable period? If so, does that not represent a considerable achievement? Does my hon. Friend agree that although, by any standard, £5,500 is a low stipend, it is essential that the Church of England should encourage more giving from its members and should have sensible investment policies? That is the best long-term help that can be given to such incumbents.

Sir William van Straubenzee: It must be remembered—as my hon. Friend has implied—that

housing free from any outgoings must be added to that sum, which probably represents about £3,000 per annum. During the years in question there was a 49 per cent. increase in the retail price index, which means that in real terms the increase was 11 per cent.

Mr. Stokes: Will my hon. Friend confirm that incumbents do not have set working hours like those working in other professions, and are not paid overtime?

Sir William van Straubenzee: Yes, Sir. In that sense, they are like Members of Parliament.

Group Ministry Work

Mr. Greenway: asked the hon. Member for Wokingham, as representing the Church Commissioners, how many clergymen are employed in group ministry work.

Sir William van Straubenzee: Up to 30 September 1982, 79 group ministries, comprising 297 benefices, had been established by schemes under the Pastoral Measure 1968. Although I cannot say precisely, there are likely to be some 300 clergymen holding benefices within group ministries.

Mr. Greenway: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that in some group ministries people are denied access to members of the clergy and to church services, because of the distance involved? Is my hon. Friend aware that in the Hereford diocese there is a group ministry containing at least 14 former parishes and that there are similarly large group ministry areas in Lincolnshire?

Sir William van Straubenzee: I cannot comment on an individual case in the diocese of Hereford. However, I am sure that the bishop of the diocese would be only too glad to help my hon. Friend if he so wished. Far fewer men serve the Church in this way and that means that—group ministry or not—in some far-flung country parishes parishioners sometimes have to travel a considerable way to attend a service.

Mr. Cormack: Although one accepts that, does my hon. Friend agree that there is considerable disquiet in the Church of England about the apparent alacrity with which many bishops introduce such groups? Does my hon. Friend agree that there is still a role for elderly clergymen? Is it not a pity that the Church should insist on retirement at 70?

Sir William van Straubenzee: I should not want to go back on the arrangements for retirement. I am not sure whether my hon. Friend was in the House on 22 November when I reminded my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) that an inquiry is afoot into the effectiveness of team ministries. If he had any evidence to give, I am sure that it would be extremely welcome.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

Arts Council (Support)

Mr. Whitehead: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what will be the level of support for the Arts Council for the coming year; and what percentage increase over the current figure this represents.

The Minister for the Arts (Mr. Paul Channon): Subject to parliamentary approval, the grant to the Arts


Council for 1983–84 will be £92 million. This is within the total provision for arts and libraries announced in the Chancellor's autumn statement. In addition, £5 million supplementary provision will be taken during the present financial year to enable the council to reduce deficits and contribute towards other expenditure currently being incurred by many performing arts companies. This will be found from within the Contingency Reserve. I propose also to have a special financial scrutiny of the operations of one or more major companies. The grant for 1983–84 will represent an increase of 7 per cent. on 1982–83.

Mr. Whitehead: While 7 per cent. is an improvement on the 4 per cent. that the Minister was offered, is he aware that that is considerably less than the 14 per cent. that the Arts Council said it needed to maintain current operations? Will he recommend to the Arts Council that the cuts which there may have to be should fall on the national companies, in which he now seems to be taking a hand, or on the already impoverished local areas, or is there to be general equality of misery?

Mr. Channon: I am utterly certain that the hon. Gentleman's forecast will be proved to be wholly unfounded. What he fails to take into account is that I have also announced an additional £5 million this year, and those two taken together will remove all those problems.

Mr. Cormack: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the two figures add up to £97 million, which is about £1 million less than the Arts Council asked for when it pitched its request a short time ago? Will he, therefore, accept the thanks of those who are concerned about the future of the arts in this country for a valiant fight put up in difficult times? Will he also accept that there are still difficult times ahead and that this must merely be seen as a good instalment of a rather difficult story?

Mr. Channon: Of course problems lie ahead, but I am entitled to claim on the evidence so far submitted to me that the major problems that so many arts organisations told me would exist next year no longer need to be feared.

Mr. McNally: Will the Minister inform the Arts Council and those London-based organisations that are in receipt of Arts Council money that many hon. Members who represent the regions will closely scrutinise the behaviour of those organisations to ensure that they realise that the money that they receive is national tax money and that they expect from them a national performance, including activity in the regions?

Mr. Channon: Yes, most certainly. It has been an increasing trend in recent years for the Arts Council grant to be switched more towards the regions. I am sure that that will continue to be the trend.

Mrs. Renée Short: The Minister will be aware that a number of the theatres that are threatened with closure at present have been carrying out valuable experimental work. How many of those will the additional £5 million rescue and allow to continue? Will his request to the Arts Council to examine the way in which resources are spent by some of the large spenders include the manager who recently announced that unless he had another £1 million he would close down the company?

Mr. Channon: I am not sure at the moment that I know what the hon. Lady is referring to. With regard to the first part of her question, it is for the Arts Council to make the

allocations when it considers the detailed grant. All I am saying is that a great many of the exaggerated fears that have been expressed over recent months will not be brought to fruition.

Sir Peter Emery: Will my right hon. Friend accept the congratulations of Conservative Members on getting as much money for the arts as he has been able to prise out of the Treasury? Will he confirm that this will mean that regional activities, particularly those in the South-West, will be able to continue at the same level as has been enjoyed during the past 12 months? That is what affects most of the people who do not live in London.

Mr. Channon: I cannot comment on individual operations, but in general the answer to my hon. Friend's question is "Yes".

Mr. Greville Janner: Does the Minister understand the agonising uncertainty that afflicts provincial theatres such as the Haymarket and the Phoenix theatres in Leicester, when they do not know from year to year what level of grant they will receive? As part of his Christmas era of goodwill, will he give an undertaking that the Arts Council grants will be continued to provincial theatres in future years so that the people who work in them so well can have a feeling of certainty for the future?

Mr. Channon: It is jolly nice of the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) to assume that I shall be at the Dispatch Box for many more years. Perhaps he is right. I am trying to remove a great deal of the agonising uncertainty by announcing this figure today.

Eastern Region (Arts Support)

Mr. Murphy: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what discussions he has had regarding the level of financial support for the arts in the Eastern region.

Mr. Channon: Funding is primarily a matter for the Arts Council, which is currently inquiring into the needs of and provisions for the arts in the Eastern region.

Mr. Murphy: Does my right hon. Friend agree with me, as a fellow Eastern region Member of Parliament, that, despite his excellent announcement, there is possibly a danger of some under-funding in the Eastern region as a consequence of a great increase in population in that area? Does he further agree that that is not, perhaps, taken into account when working out the amount of money for which the region is eligible?

Mr. Channon: Arts Council subsidies have never been calculated on the basis of the size of population in a region. They are related to the arts resources in any one particular area. That is the basis on which they have been calculated for all regions. However, my hon. Friend and many other hon. Members have made this point to me, which is one of the many reasons why the Arts Council is holding a special inquiry into the funds for the Eastern region.

Mr. Whitehead: Bearing in mind that the Eastern region receives only one-third of the amount of Arts Council subsidy that London receives, even after excluding the national companies, according to Mr. Hutchinson's recent report, will the Minister say whether any of the £5 million once-and-for-all figure that he announced today will be used to rectify this imbalance?

Mr. Channon: We shall have to await the Arts Council's detailed allocation of the money. The Arts Council is taking the problems of the Eastern region seriously and a special inquiry is going on.

Sir Derek Walker-Smith: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for the reasoned explanation that he recently gave me of the position of the Eastern Region Arts Association. Does he accept that I should be still more grateful if he could give sympathetic consideration to ameliorating its relatively disadvantageous position? Does he appreciate that this would bring great pleasure to the association and not least to its president, my eminent friend and constituent Henry Moore?

Mr. Channon: I should be delighted to give any pleasure I could to Mr. Henry Moore. One of the problems in the Eastern region has been the relatively low level of contribution by some local authorities. Local authorities must spend within their means, but they should examine some of the contributions that they have made to the association.

National Film School

Mr. Brinton: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will pay an official visit to the National Film School.

Mr. Channon: Yes, Sir. I have already paid one visit to the National Film School and would be delighted to do so again.

Mr. Brinton: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Has he yet had time to consider the recent report of the Select Committee on Education, Science and the Arts on the future of the film industry? Does he agree that as the majority of the graduates from the National Film School go to work in television we should now be looking for a greater contribution from television for the financing of the school?

Mr. Channon: I have studied the recent Select Committee report on many aspects of the arts. The Government will make a considered reply to it in the spring. With regard to my hon. Friend's specific point, that is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary but I shall ensure that he is aware of my hon. Friend's view on this topic.

Arts Council (Secretary General)

Mr. Greenway: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has approved the appointment of the next secretary general of the Arts Council.

Mr. Channon: No appointment has yet been made.

Mr. Greenway: When does my right hon. Friend hope to be able to make an announcement? Does he deplore all the leaks that have taken place following applications for the post?

Mr. Channon: I deplore the leaks, but I have learnt that leaks happen in every walk of life. Alas, they seem to be on the increase rather than the decrease. The announcement of the appointment is entirely for the Arts Council.

Arts Council Budget

Mr. Jessel: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proportion of the Arts Council budget is spent in Greater London.

Mr. Channon: Excluding the grants to the London-based national companies and the running costs of the galleries operated direct by the Arts Council, the proportion of the council's budget spent on the arts in London was 8·5 per cent. of the total in 1981–82.

Mr. Jessel: Will my right hon. Friend remind the Arts Council, when it is administering the increase, with which we are all delighted following his announcement, always to remember that London is a major magnet for tourists visiting Britain from overseas and that anything that is spent in this area helps the national economy?

Mr. Channon: Yes, I agree with that. However, I must remind my hon. Friend, as others have, that the national companies themselves provide an enormous attraction to tourists and lead to a considerable amount of expenditure in London. I think that there will be general support in the House for the continuance of the work of the national institutions.

"European Gateway" and "Speedlink Vanguard" (Collision)

Sir Julian Ridsdale: (by private notice) asked the Secretary of State for Trade to make a statement on the collision between the "European Gateway" and the "Speedlink Vanguard" yesterday.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Iain Sproat): The passenger ferry "European Gateway" sailed from Felixstowe clearing the berth at about 22.40 on 19 December for Europort with 36 crew members, 34 passengers and a number of cars and lorries on board. At about 22.50 she was in collision with the cargo vessel "Speedlink Vanguard" which was inward bound from Zeebrugge. Weather conditions at the time were severe with a south-west to west gale force 8 to storm force 10 with showers of rain; visibility was moderate to good.
The coastguard alerted all ships in the area and mounted an air and sea search. Several helicopters, the lifeboats from Walton and Harwich and other vessels, including the Harwich pilot boat, searched the area. The search continued until 05.42 today and a further air search was carried out at first light for the one person at that time not accounted for. Sixty-four survivors were rescued, but I regret to tell the House that two passengers and three crew members were lost and one crew member is still missing. My Department has ordered a preliminary inquiry in order to establish the cause of casualty.
I am sure that hon. Members would wish to join me in expressing deepest sympathy to the families and relations of those who have lost their lives as a result of this tragic casualty.

Sir Julian Ridsdale: May I join the Minister and others in the House in his expressions of sympathy? Secondly, may I congratulate, through the Minister, the rescue services and the social services, which acted so promptly in saving what could have been further loss of life?
Will the Minister order an inquiry? Is he aware that there was concern that the lifeboats on the "European Gateway" were not able to be lowered? Was this because of listing? The lifeboat on the "Speedlink Vanguard" was able to be lowered. I pay tribute to the "Danna Futura", which was able to keep to windward and enable the rescue operation to take place.
Lastly, is my hon. Friend aware that the "Speedlink Vanguard" should be in operation in January after extensive repairs?

Mr. Sproat: I thank my hon. Friend for the just tribute that he has paid to the skill and heroism of so many who were involved. I have ordered a preliminary inquiry, which may lead to a formal investigation. The alleged details that were reported of what happened to the lifeboats are matters that it will be the duty of the inquiry to ascertain.

Mr. Peter Archer: I am sure that the whole House wishes to be associated with the sympathy and condolences expressed by the Minister for the families of the victims and the congratulations to the rescue services. The House will not expect the Minister to make any further pronouncements in advance of the prelminary inquiry, but does he appreciate that as it is a passenger service which is involved there is grave anxiety among the

travelling public arising both from the fact of the collision and from some of the allegations which have appeared in the media? Will he undertake to make a full statement as soon as he is in a position to do so? If in the meanwhile he orders a formal inquiry, will he announce that to the House by way of a preliminary statement?

Mr. Sproat: I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for the sympathy which he has expressed on behalf of the families and relations. I can assure him that I am well aware if the deep anxiety that the travelling public must feel on this occasion. The vessel had been surveyed within the past month. All the details will be considered during the preliminary inquiry. I undertake to let the House know the result of that inquiry.

Mr. James Callaghan: Apart from the issues that the inquiry will investigate, is not the major question why, in an open seaway, with moderate to good visibility, two ships should have collided? Unless the preliminary investigation can allocate clear responsibility for why this should have happened, there should be a formal investigation to get to the bottom of it.

Mr. Sproat: The answer to both the right hon. Gentleman's questions is "Yes, Sir".

Mr. Keith Stanton: Pursuant to the question of the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), I confirm my astonishment that the force of the wind was 8 to 10 and that visibility was moderate to good. One has recollections of the loss of the Stranraer-Larne ferry about 10 years ago. This is highly disconcerting for passenger traffic. I plead with my hon. Friend to give the House the fullest possible reassurances with the minimum delay.

Mr. Sproat: I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks. That which he regards with some amazement is one of the issues that the inquiry must resolve.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a private notice question, but I shall, exceptionally, call those Members who have been rising in their places before moving on to other matters.

Mr. Tom McNally: I endorse the expressions of sympathy for those who lost their lives and of awe at the courage of the rescue workers. Bearing in mind the growing volume of sea traffic around our coast, does the Minister think that sufficient urgency is being given to making progress in discussions within the European Community and with the North Sea bordering countries to ensure that safety standards are uniform and of the highest level?

Mr. Sproat: Yes, I am so satisfied. The hon. Gentleman will know that we signed the Paris memorandum of understanding earlier this year on precisely these matters. I am glad to be able to tell him that Britain is keeping up the percentage of inspections, the 25 per cent. that we promised, and I expect this high standard to be maintained.

Mr. Stephen Ross: The Liberal Party associates itself with the expressions of sympathy. I can confirm that the weather conditions were terrible last night, even during my crossing of the Solent. Were any


sailings cancelled from Harwich or Felixstowe last night? Is it not a fact that this is the first fatal accident in which European Ferries has been concerned in 20 years of operations? That in itself is a pretty good record.

Mr. Sproat: I have no knowledge of any cancellations last night. I am not able to confirm the precise details that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. If those are the facts, which I have no reason to doubt, they constitute a splendid record.

Mr. John Prescott: The House will be aware that today is the anniversary of the expression of condolences for the loss of 16 men from the Penlee lifeboat and the "Union Star". No doubt Christmas will claim more seamen's lives in further incidents. Can the Minister assure us that when the public investigation takes place, as it must, it will not take as long as the one year and four months that it has taken him to set up the Penlee inquiry?
Is the Minister also aware of the increasing anger felt by many seamen and by some members of the air-sea rescue services who are witnessing condolences expressed in the House at a time when the Minister is presiding over cuts in coastguards, look-out facilities, helicopter liaison officers and now the Land's End radio station? The Minister is motivated by a desire to save money that will undermine the safety of seafarers. Will he stop the cuts now, conduct a proper inquiry and increase the safety of seamen who are engaged in the most dangerous occupation in Britain?

Mr. Sproat: I am sure that all hon. Members are aware of the tragic anniversary that this has turned out to be. I ordered the inquiry earlier today and it has already begun to sit. If the preliminary inquiry should lead to a formal investigation, that will be set up with all due speed.
As to the hon. Gentleman's remarks about coastguards and lifeboats, all that I can say is that the coastguards and lifeboat men performed their jobs on this occasion with their customary heroism and skill. There is no question of any cuts bearing on what happened in this tragic accident.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: May we have an immediate safety review of every operational ferry serving the United Kingdom? Is the Minister aware that Townsend Thoresen will disclaim all insurance liability for the tractors and trailers carried on the ferry, which will mean substantial cash flow problems for many hauliers? It he also aware that some drivers may have been sleeping in their cabs in contravention of Townsend Thoresen's conditions of carriage? If that is so, will the Minister issue instructions to all ferry companies to ensure that it does not happen in future?

Mr. Sproat: The answer to the first question is "No, Sir". My answer to the second and third questions is that I am not aware of those facts.

British Steel Corporation

The Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Patrick Jenkin): With permission Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about the future strategy of the British Steel Corporation.
The House is already aware that the crisis affecting the steel industry worldwide poses severe problems for the British Steel Corporation. Last spring, BSC just about broke even and the prospect for the current year, 1982–83, was for a small profit before interest. However, following the American protectionist measures and the sharp downturn in world markets for steel, BSC is again making heavy losses, now running at more than £7 million a week. The management has, therefore, been engaged in an urgent reappraisal of its prospects and of the steps necessary to stem these mounting losses.
In my speech to the House on 9 November I made it clear that the BSC management had the responsibility for taking such steps as were necessary to achieve that, but that any closure of one of the five main integrated steelworks would have to be considered in conjunction with the Government.
The recent BSC management decisions involving closures and redundancies illustrate the scale of the problem and the immediate measures necessary to stem the losses. In preparing their new corporate plan for the three years 1983–86, the BSC chairman Mr. Ian MacGregor has been discussing with me the further options open to him, including the option that one of BSC's five major integrated steelworks might be closed.
In considering the future of those five works, the crucial question is how much capacity is likely to be needed n the foreseeable future. Compared with a manned liquid steel capacity last year, 1981–82, of 14·4 million tonnes a year, BSC's current output is running at a rate of below 10 million tonnes of liquid steel a year. If there were no prospect of an increased output, there could be no economic justification for retaining all five integrated steelworks.
However, the position is not as bleak as that. A number of factors should result in some increase in BSC's steel production in 1983, and this is indeed the corporation' s latest forecast. How far demand is likely to recover beyond that is, of course, difficult to predict. Much depends on external factors, notably the success of the ECSC steel regime, the future trends of world trade, and perhaps above all the international competitiveness of the main steel-using industries in Britain and of BSC itself. And while the world export market for steel is bound to remain difficult, further substantial improvements in BSC's competitiveness could offer improved prospects for exports.
Moreover, as I have made clear to the House on many occasions, the United Kingdom steel industry has made far greater cuts in capacity than the steel industries in other European Community countries. It is the turn of other member States to close steelworks and to cut capacity as we have done.
It remains the Government's firm resolve that the corporation should return to lasting viability, free of Government subsidy. That is the only way to have an efficient steel industry, providing steel at competitive prices to the market, and the only way to achieve secure


employment in steel. Moreover, the Community steel regime requires operating subsidies to be eliminated by the end of 1984. Although it will not now be possible for BSC to become profitable this year, as had been hoped, the corporation has accepted that its aim should be to return to breakeven before interest in 1984–85.
The problem, therefore, is what strategic decisions should be taken to achieve our commercial and financial objectives in the longer term.
The Government believe that it would be wrong to take irrevocable decisions on future steel capacity at a time of such major uncertainty. I am therefore asking BSC to prepare its plan for the next three years on the basis that steel making will continue at all five major integrated sites. However, that must depend on each site performing effectively and upon future demand and output. I must also make it clear that this does not imply that BSC will be required to maintain manned capacity at the current level of 14·4 million tonnes, nor that all the facilities within each of the five major integrated sites will necessarily remain in operation. The corporation will continue to be free to take management action to cut costs where necessary in order to maintain efficient operations and to move steadily towards the objective of viability. Indeed, in the case of Ravenscraig, BSC management is at present considering the closure of the slabbing mill because of the general reduction in steel demand coupled with growing customer preference for lower-cost slab produced through the continuous-casting route. That is entirely a matter for the corporation's management and it will make its decision in the next few weeks in the light of a careful examination of the prospects for that mill.
There is also the question of future major investment. The Port Talbot works has been substantially modernised in recent years, but the hot strip mill, which is now 30 years old, is in need of modernisation and a project proposal has been put forward by BSC. The Government fully appreciate the importance of the mill operating to the highest standards of quality and efficiency. We are discussing the details of the project with BSC in the light of the latest estimates of demand for strip products; it must also be discussed with the European Commission. I shall announce the Government's decision as soon as possible.
The House will wish to know what the financial consequences of those decisions might be. Our preliminary view is that the additional costs can be contained within revised EFLs for this year and for 1983–84, which will maintain the downward path of Government funding of the corporation, albeit at a slower rate than we had previously envisaged, reflecting the inevitably slower progress to breakeven that we now expect. I shall announce revised EFLs for this year and 1983–84 as soon as possible.
However, I must stress one point. The decisions that I have announced today do not mean that any particular works or plant is safe. That must depend on future markets and on plants being operated to the highest efficiencies. Massive sums have been invested by the corporation in modern plant, amounting to more than £3,000 million during the past 10 years. Although immense progress has been made in raising productivity to levels approaching the best European standards, Mr. MacGregor has made it clear

to me that there is still quite a long way to go before BSC matches the productivity records of its major competitors. Quality, efficiency and service are vital.
The decision that I have announced is a challenge to both management and men.

Mr. Stanley Orme: This is an extremely important and serious statement. Although we welcome the fact that none of the five major plants is to be closed, the Government have made no specific longterm proposals for the steel industry. Therefore, the statement in no way provides an answer to the crisis that faces the steel industry.
Nearly 80,000 jobs have been lost in the steel industry since 1979 and redundancies are still taking place at an ever increasing pace. At least 10,286 jobs have been lost since 21 October this year. How many more redundancies are envisaged as a result of the statement? We do not want a repeat of what happened in a recent debate when the Minister did not tell the House what was happening when redundancies were taking place. We do not want redundancies to take place during the recess so that the House does not have a chance to discuss them.
Is the decision not to close any of the big five permanent or merely temporary? The Secretary of State said that the plan was on a three-year basis. We want some permanence in the industry. We should like a categorical answer about whether the decision not to close the big five is permanent or temporary.
The Secretary of State mentioned the possible closure of the slab mill at Ravenscraig. How many jobs would be lost if it were closed? Ravenscraig has already suffered many job losses. What action is he taking about imports from the EEC and elsewhere? What happens if we do not accept EEC targets? Will we take action against the EEC? Will we stand up to it as the right hon. Gentleman envisaged in his statement? His actions so far have fallen far short of that.
Does the Secretary of State agree that demand in the economy is one of the basic reasons for the decline in the steel industry? Does he agree that that is a far more important element than manning in such a capital-intensive industry? The Secretary of State, in his statement, paid no compliment to the workers in the industry. Increased productivity and the sacrifices that workers in the British steel industry have made should be recognised.
The Secretary of State was extremely vague about the external financing limit. Does he agree that an increase in the external financing limit is the key to future investment in jobs? Why can he not be more candid with the House? Has his Department made no assessment? We need an early answer to those questions.
When will Mr. MacGregor submit the revised corporate plan? Will there be genuine consultation this time rather than the cosmetic discussions of the past? I give the Secretary of State notice that we wish to have a debate on the corporate plan at the earliest opportunity. Does he agree that, as long as the Government's present economic policies continue, there will be no satisfactory solution to the crisis in the British steel industry?

Mr. Jenkin: The right hon. Gentleman is deluding himself if he believes that Britain is alone in facing a crisis in steel. [HON. MEMBERS: "He did not say that."] The right hon. Gentleman was implying that the crisis was the


Government's fault. I remind him that the American steel industry is working at 40 per cent. of its capacity. Even Japan is now operating at the lowest level of output for 10 years. In the EEC, output over the last quarter was at the lowest level for 30 years. It is nonsense for the right hon. Gentleman to blame the difficulties that we face on the Government and Britain alone.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Secretary of State paying MacGregor?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must tell the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) that a running commentary from a sitting position——

Mr. Skinner: I only opened my mouth——

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman does that while I am speaking, I shall order him out of the Chamber. A running commentary when someone is trying to answer a question is against everything that the House stands for. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will realise that.

Mr. Jenkin: The right hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) asked when we would have the corporate plan. My statement today is intended merely to give guidance to the corporation, on the basis of which it should prepare the corporate plan. I hope to have the plan by about the end of next month. The Government will then require a little while to consider it. I hope to be able to make a further statement to the House at about the beginning of March. That is when I should be able to give the House more details about the external financing limit for BSC which the Government will then have agreed. As the right hon. Gentleman said, my statement is not an answer to all the questions. We must await the next three-year corporate plan from BSC.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me how many more redundancies there will be. I cannot tell him. The management of the corporation is in the hands of the board. Just as was the case with our predecessors, management decisions fall to the board.
The right hon. Gentleman asked whether my announcement today was temporary or permanent. The short answer is that it is the basis on which I am asking the corporation to draw up the plan. How long steel working at all five works will remain depends on the movement of markets, on costs and on prices. He asked me how many jobs are at risk if the Ravenscraig slab mill closes. The answer is about 700.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about imports. He will know that strenuous efforts are being made by the Government and by the Community to restore stability in the European market, including a tougher regime on imports to the Community from third countries.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me what will happen if we do not accept EEC targets. The simple fact is that aid given by Governments to their steel industries requires the consent of the Commission. The Commission has made it clear that consent will not be forthcoming unless there are closures. I have said that we have made closures and that it is time for other countries to do the same.
The right hon. Gentleman's question about time for a debate is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House of Commons.

Mr. Michael Brown: Although those hon. Members who, like me, represent one of the five integrated plants will be relieved that no

decision about their future has been taken, does my right hon. Friend agree that there will still be uncertainty in those plants?
Perhaps I may press my right hon. Friend further about redundancies being the responsibility of management. He said in his statement that the Government have taken a policy decision regarding the future of the five works but that he is leaving it to BSC to advance proposals as to how it will produce steel in those five works. Does he agree that, after the past four or five years in which no integrated BSC works has been able to look more than two or three months ahead, and during which time redundancies have been announced in my constituency on four separate occasions—500 then 300 then 130 and finally 45 steel workers were made redundant—there comes a time when the Government should give BSC some guidance about the level of manpower that it should employ?

Mr. Jenkin: I have the utmost sympathy for those in the steel-making areas, in my hon. Friend's constituency and elsewhere, who have faced the serious personal and community stresses that the crisis in the steel industry has thrown up. I wish that I could be more definite, but I cannot.
I must make it clear that it is for the corporation to spell out the details of its three-year plan, on the basis that I have described. I expect that the plan will clarify the job prospects within the BSC. It would be a grave mistake if the Government were to attempt to tell Mr. MacGregor and his board how they should carry out their duties to manage the BSC. We appointed them to make those decisions and to run the industry, and we should leave them to do that.

Mr. Arthur Bottomley: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his statement that all steel undertakings are subject to closure will cause uncertainty and will lower the morale of workers in the industry? Does he not think that it would be wiser to say that what Europe acknowledges as the most efficient and modern steel plants should be assured of a future and that they should be named?

Mr. Jenkin: It would be unwise for me to speculate on the likely configuration of plants over the next few years. As I announced, I have told the BSC that we expect it to plan on the basis of five integrated steel works remaining in existence. I cannot give the open-ended guarantee that the right hon. Gentleman seeks. The decision to retain steel making at the five sites depends on each plant making the maximum effort to perform effectively and on the future pattern of steel demand and output.

Mr. John H. Osborn: My right hon. Friend knows that the steel industry is made up of the BSC and the private sector. What guarantees can he give the private sector about special steels, which are made mainly in Sheffield, particularly as regards import penetration of stainless, alloy tool and high-speed steels? Is he aware that unfair subsidies are being paid to the BSC as against the private sector? Is it not time that we considered more privatisation of the BSC?

Mr. Jenkin: I assure my hon. Friend that I am well aware of my responsibilities as the sponsoring Minister for the private sector. He knows that the Government have been seeking to extend the list of products covered by the Paris treaty to include the engineering high-speed steels to


which he referred. We believe that the steel regime would be improved if those products were included, and we continue to press that course on the Commission.
I remind my hon. Friend that we have already announced a £22 million scheme for the private sector. That sum will be increased to over £34 million to allow for all the applications that have been made and we expect to give additional assistance under section 8 of the Industry Act 1972, so that the total help available for the private sector will be nearly £50 million.

Mr. John Morris: Is not all this buck-passing and non-decision making rather sickening? Has not the approach of a general election concentrated the Government's mind? Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that the Port Talbot area, which has been devastated by steel closures and job losses—7,000 losses against a mere replacement of 500—would welcome an early decision on the new mill there? Why is the decision being delayed? Why is there need for further consideration of what is, after all, only a replacement mill? Is it because the EC is holding things up and has not understood that it is a replacement mill and not additional capacity?

Mr. Jenkin: The right hon. and learned Gentleman was a member of the Labour Government who published a White Paper containing this sentence:
The prime duty for this"—
putting the BSC back on the road to financial viability—
must lie on the management and the workforce of the Corporation.
That is exactly the position of the present Government. There is no buck passing. We appointed the chairman and the board to manage the corporation and they must be free to take the decisions that are necessary to achieve viability.
It is not true to say that the Port Talbot strip mill is merely a replacement of capacity. A modernised mill would substantially enhance capacity and could provide more grades of strip steel to meet the needs of the market. The project will have to be discussed with the Commission.

Mr. Michael Grylls: What will be the extra cost to the taxpayer of delaying the viability of the BSC? Does my right hon. Friend agree that his decision could lead to more steel imports, because the cost of BSC products will be kept unnecessarily high by the corporation being forced to maintain five plants against its wishes?

Mr. Jenkin: I have to tell my hon. Friend that I do not think that his last point is right. The prices at which steel will be sold will be those set in the guidelines of the Commission under the Davignon regime. The effect of what I have announced, the crisis in the steel industry and the loss of sales is to delay the return to viability. Therefore, it will involve an extra charge on the taxpayer, but I cannot tell my hon. Friend more at present. We shall not have fully revised cash estimates until we have received and assessed BSC's new corporate plan for 1983–86.
Some of the figures that have been bandied about in the press—I noticed the figure of £500 million in a Sunday newspaper—are well wide of the mark. I should be surprised if we were talking of a figure one-third of that sum over the next three years.

Dr. Jeremy Bray: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his decision to maintain the essential fabric of the big five, and particularly of Ravenscraig, is essential if British industry is ever to recover from the catastrophic falls of 16 per cent. in manufacturing output and 17 per cent. in production since 1979?
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the standard coil cost of £136 per tonne now attainable at Ravenscraig, the productivity rate of 3·9 man hours per tonne and the range of high-quality steels available from Ravenscraig cannot be matched anywhere else in Britain and scarcely anywhere else in England? Will he ensure that Ravencraig gets the share of orders that the magnificent performance by steel workers and the management at Ravenscraig has made possible?
Will the right hon. Gentleman tell his colleagues in the Cabinet that the international competitiveness of which he speaks will not be attained unless the Government allow the pound to resume a competitive level? If that is not done, not only steel but manufacturing industry generally will be drowned in a flood of imports. Are the Government aware that they have already destroyed more British industry than Hitler ever managed to destroy?

Mr. Jenkin: I cannot congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his final remark. He knows that the steel industry and others throughout Europe have suffered greatly in the recession. If he wants to know why British industry has suffered more, I advise him to look at the record of unit labour costs between 1975 and 1979. In Germany they rose by 12 per cent., in Japan by 15 per cent., in the United States by 32 per cent., in France by 54 per cent., and in the United Kingdom by 101 per cent. The hon. Gentleman does not need to look much further for an explanation for many of the difficulties confronting the British steel industry.
I have nothing but sympathy for the workers at the Ravencraig plant in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. Yes, they have begun substantially to improve productivity in that works, but no doubt the hon. Gentleman saw the table published in The Times today. It is based on European statistics and shows that, although immense strides have been made in improving the amount of steel produced per employee, the United Kingdom is still bottom of the league. That is why Mr. MacGregor is right when he says that there is still some way to go before we can match the productivity records of our main competitors.

Mr. Hal Miller (Bromsgrove and Redditch): I thank my right hon. Friend for remedying a grave wrong by making funds available for the restructuring of the private section of the steel industry, but may I ask him to consider how private industry is supposed to compete in the circumstances he outlined to us of continuing overcapacity and the failure so far of BSC to achieve all-round comparable levels of productivity? How are private firms supposed to match that competition?

Mr. Jenkin: One of the things that I have been working towards is a clearer boundary between BSC and private sector activities. I am discussing this with the corporation and with the British Independent Steel Producers' Association. Progress has been much slower than I would have hoped, but I intend to give the matter high priority over the next few months. I am also anxious to see much


greater price transparency in the case of those products where the British Steel Corporation competes directly with the private sector. The achievement of those two measures would go a long way towards relieving the anxieties of the private sector.

Mr Roy Hughes (Newport): Many people believe that this so-called rescue operation has been carried out for reasons of political expediency. Does the Secretary of State appreciate that this vital and key industry needs more favourable and long-term treatment, and that there is intense disappointment at Llanwern at the failure to authorise a con-cast plant, which is vital if the works, which has a splendid record, is to have a long-term future?

Mr. Jenkin: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman cannot decide whether he is pleased or disappointed at what I have announced. The decisions announced today were taken on the basis of an economic and financial assessment of the future demand for steel and of the likely path of BSC towards profitability. The closure of a major works would have entailed very significant costs, both directly and indirectly, and would have involved the writing off of substantial assets in which the taxpayer has invested heavily.
In one sense, no decision involving BSC could be described as commercial, since the corporation would long ago have been in liquidation if it had been a private sector company.

Mr. Roger Moate: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be quite unacceptable for any British company to be forced to cut back production because of quota restrictions if BSC had a surplus quota? Has not the Commission said that there is 1 million tonnes of surplus quota in the Community? How much of that is BSC's? Is it not time to help the private sector by putting all the cards on the table with regard to quota arrangements?

Mr. Jenkin: I am not privy to the answer to my hon. Friend's question about the Community's allocation of quota. However, I have asked Mr. MacGregor, if he has surplus quota, to make it available first to British companies. I am well aware of the difficulties of the small steel company in my hon. Friend's constituency. As he knows we have done everything we can to help that company through the crisis.

Mr. John Grant: Although the Secretary of State's stay of execution is welcome, is he aware that this Christmas offering is grossly unsatisfactory? It resolves nothing and gives us no guidance whatever on future job losses—the human consequences of the policy. In view of the CBI's gloomy estimate this morning about future manufacturing output and demand, how will the Government quickly stimulate demand in the economy? That is the major requirement of the steel industry.

Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman is unfairly critical. The House sought a statement from me on the basis on which I had always made it clear that a statement would be made—the guidelines to be given to the corporation on the basis of which it should prepare its corporate plan. It now has to do that. I have already suggested when I shall expect to be able to make a further statement giving more details of the prospects for jobs and of the likely effect on external financing limits.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the question of demand in the economy generally. It is a matter of competitiveness. If British industry, having between 1975 and 1980 lost about 50 per cent. of its competitiveness, could now continue its recovery—in the past two years we have recovered about half what was lost—there will he a possibility of more output in the steel-using industry and more demand for steel from British factories.

Mr. Stan Crowther: Are we to assume, from the replies given to my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Dr. Bray) and the hon. Member for Islington, Central (Mr. Grant), that the Secretary of State still does not accept that the fortunes of the steel industry, public and private, could be greatly improved if the Government would take the necessary steps that are within their power to step up demand—dealing, for example, with interest charges, energy prices and the unrealistic rate of sterling? Is the Secretary of State still saying, after all the years of debate, that the Government cannot do anything about it?

Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman will know that over the past 12 months interest rates have fallen sharply and are down by six percentage points. He will know that there has been a movement in the past two months on the exchange rate and that in the last two Budgets, and again in November, we have announced substantial help for industry in energy matters.
On all three points that the hon. Gentleman made, the Government have taken steps and allowed developments to happen that should have the effect of increasing demand. As I go round industry, I find virtually no support for the kind of general reflation of demand that the Labour Party continually seeks. Industry wants inflation to continue to come down, and it wants us to stick to our guns.

Mr. Michael Marshall: Will my right hon. Friend accept that, given the uncertainties within the European Coal and Steel Community and the problems in relation to the United States steel trade, Conservative Members will not have much sympathy with him in doing what I believe the Government should not do, that is to say, trying to reach assessments of markets and capacity, but that, given those circumstances, he will have our support?
Will my right hon. Friend follow through the logic of the problem that still remains with the five plants? Will he assure the House that the investment in South Wales for Port Talbot and Llanwern will be looked at on its merits and not offset against the extra cost of maintaining Ravenscraig? Further, does my right hon. Friend hope to move further towards privatisation, which is more market-oriented than the present situation in which he has had to intervene?

Mr. Jenkin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his understanding remarks.
With regard to investment in South Wales, I have asked the corporation to put forward its Port Talbot project in the light of the latest demands for strip, and I have indicated the Government's sympathy with the project. I hope to make an announcement at the same time as I announce the corporate plan.
With regard to the investment in continuous—casting facilities at Llanwern—the other project that I think my


hon. Friend has in mind—the corporation has not as yet put forward a project for that. With the retention of continuous casting for the time being at Ravenscraig, it would be doubtful if it could make a case now for that at Llanwern. The Government have certainly not set their face against either project. They will be judged upon their merits.

Miss Joan Maynard: Is the Minister aware that in the past few years capacity in Britain has been cut by 33 per cent., while it has been cut by only 15 per cent. in France and hardly at all in the rest of the European Community? Is he further aware that 117,000 jobs have gone, 50,000 of them in Britain? When will Ministers start to stand up for Britain, not just in the Falkland Islands but for British industry and jobs?

Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Lady will recognise that I made it clear in my statement that other countries now have to cut capacity in the same way that we have.
Recently the Commission gave consent to aid by the German Government to the private company, Arbed Saarstahl, and did not make it clear at the outset that it was to be matched by a reduction in capacity. I took up the matter at once with the Commissioner responsible and have had an assurance from him that the Commission is looking for a cut in capacity of about ½ million tonnes of steel a year from that company. It is a question of negotiating the precise timing of the cut with the company. I intend to hold the Commission to that undertaking.

Mr. Geraint Howells: I believe that the steel workers of Britain should accept today's statement with a great deal of caution with regard to their future. Is it right for us to assume that the announcement today about injecting capital into the steel industry is only postponing the inevitable closures to a politically more convenient time?

Mr. Jenkin: Workers in the steel industry will be right to treat the future with some caution. I have made it clear that I cannot give an undertaking that any particular plant or any particular works is safe indefinitely. Nor could the Labour Government. Part of the problem with which the Government have had to grapple is that the Labour Government put off year after year the closures that we have had to allow to take place over the past two or three years. The future of the steelworks will depend upon the success of management and work force in raising their competitiveness to the highest European levels.

Mr. Michael Ancram: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, despite cavilling by Opposition Members, his statement will be greeted with great relief in Scotland and will be regarded as a token of the Government's faith in Scotland's industrial future? Does he not agree, however, that those combined forces of industrialists and trade unionists that fought so hard for the retention of Ravenscraig now have the responsibility to create the industrial and economic stability in Scotland which alone can attract the customers and markets upon which Ravenscraig's survival depends?

Mr. Jenkin: I agree with my hon. Friend. What is wanted is not so much more statements but more customers.

Mr. Bill Homewood: I did not think that the Secretary of State could get through his statement without quoting The Times of today. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, crude productivity figures have been a nonsense in the steel industry since their inception because various steel industries use different methods of employing their labour. Is it not the case that since 1979 employment within the steel industry in the EC has fallen by 14·5 per cent. and within the United Kingdom steel industry by 49 per cent.? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that even if one goes back to 1974, as he wishes, the fall within the EC has been 30 per cent. and in the United Kingdom 59 per cent.? Is not the real problem that the figures for manufacturing industry within this country over the last three and a half years—I do not need to look at my notes for this purpose—show a fall of 15 per cent. compared with 5·5 per cent. in Germany and 4 per cent. in France?

Mr. Jenkin: I am not able to confirm or deny the plethora of figures that the hon. Gentleman has given. I shall study them carefully.

Several hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call four more hon. Members from either side, which will mean I shall have allowed much longer on this statement than is usual.

Sir Peter Emery: Does my right hon. Friend realise that it is widely believed that Mr. MacGregor recommended to the Government that one of the five major plants should be closed and that this view was overridden by the Government? Will my right hon. Friend say whether that is true or false?

Mr. Jenkin: Mr. MacGregor made it clear to me that, if he were to adhere to the profit targets that we had set him earlier, he would have to take some brutal and drastic steps involving the closure of one of the five major plants. It was therefore for the Government, as the owner of the business, to consider whether it would be appropriate to take such a step in the trough of the recession and when market prospects are so uncertain and when we have cut so much more than all the other European countries. It was in these circumstances that I suggested to Mr. MacGregor that it might be wiser to stretch it out over a little longer. [Laughter.] He has accepted the aim therefore to break even before interest in 1984–85. I cannot think why Opposition Members think it so funny. I make it abundantly clear that Mr. MacGregor fully supports the statement that I have made.

Mr. Barry Jones: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that he gives the impression that he does not truly comprehend the social consequences of major redundancies in steel areas? Does he know that in my constituency, where 8,000 jobs were lost in one year, in 1980, the county of Clywd has 27,000 people seeking work and 7,500 children receiving free school meals? Is he prepared to say today that what remains of the BSC Shotton works will not suffer any more redundancies?

Mr. Jenkin: I wish I could give the hon. Gentleman that pledge, but I cannot. He is wrong and unfair to suggest that the Government do not understand the social consequences of what has happened in the steel industry over the past two or three years. We are very conscious of them. We have taken a whole range of measures to help the areas that have suffered the heaviest steel closures, including the converting of the steel area in the hon.
Gentleman's constituency into a special development area which means that it is able to attract extra investment, which it is doing with some success.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his fateful decision to oblige the British Steel Corporation to keep open the five integrated plants will return to haunt him and his Conservative successors for a generation? Why should this Government, of all Governments, need reminding that the way to save jobs is to make industry as a whole competitive and that a massively subsidised steel industry will drag down with it into the pit many other industries and many other jobs?

Mr. Jenkin: I must say, with respect, that I do not accept my hon. Friend's criticism. The British Steel Corporation has made major efforts, with the support of its work force, to put its own house in order. Although more remains to be done, it would be a counsel of despair to refuse to recognise that the market collapse must mean slower progress to viability. It would be folly to cut off further support and to prevent the corporation from seeking to build on the progress that it has already achieved.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: Does the Secretary of State realise that his statement will create further uncertainty and that it will be seen only as a temporary reprieve of Ravenscraig and the Scottish steel industry? Has it been agreed with the British Steel Corporation that in no circumstances will the two blast furnaces at Ravenscraig be reduced to one as a result of the reductions and other changes that will obviously take place within BSC?

Mr. Jenkin: That is not a decision that it would be appropriate for Ministers to take. It is essentially a management decision for the corporation.

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: My right hon. Friend made the point that Mr. MacGregor has been asked to extend for three years a decision on the closure of one of the five plants. Does this mean that the Government, at long last, are to take firm action with EC countries such as Italy which, I believe, has actually increased capacity? Has not the time come to tell them that the sacrifices that we have made have to be matched, not at some time but now, and that otherwise we shall take our own action to ensure that our industry is further protected?

Mr. Jenkin: I must make it clear to my hon. Friend that the basis on which I have asked Mr. MacGregor to prepare his plan is that of continuing steel making at the five plants. I have given no guarantee—nor can I—that steel making will remain indefinitely at all five plants. I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend. It is what I have been doing individually with my opposite numbers in our partner countries, with the members of the Commission and at the Council of Industry Ministers in Denmark last month. I have made clear that we have cut a great deal of capacity and that it is now their turn.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Is it not misleading for the Minister to suggest to the House that these plants are to be saved when it is obvious that it is the Government's intention to slim down each of the steel operations? In any slimming-down policy, will the Minister ensure that the plant is not destroyed but mothballed?

Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Member will know that there are different considerations that apply to the mothballing of different kinds of plant. It is extremely difficult to mothball a blast furnace. The decision that I announced today is to give the management and staff at the five major integrated steelworks a chance to continue to improve their productivity so as to ensure their future. However, I cannot guarantee that.

Mr. Albert McQuarrie: My right hon. Friend's statement this afternoon will be accepted with considerable joy in the West of Scotland. It justifies the hard fight put up by my right hon. Friend and by the Secretary of State for Scotland, and the excellent report submitted by the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs. In connection with the slab mill that my right hon. Friend is suggesting may be closed, will there be positive discussions between management and unions before there is any question of the 700 redundancies being declared because, as the Select Committee report says, a large number of redundancies in the West of Scotland would be unacceptable to the people of Scotland?

Mr. Jenkin: There are established procedures in the corporation for discussion of these matters, and their implementation is a matter for the management of the corporation. I am sure that my hon. Friend, for whose remarks I am grateful, recognises that the question whether operation of the slabbing mill at Ravenscraig can continue must depend on whether markets can be found for the output. There is no sense in running a plant for making steel if there is nobody to buy the steel.

Mr. Donald Coleman: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that every time he has risen to speak from the Dispatch Box this afternoon he has lowered the morale of people in the steel industry, because each time he has been making contradictory statements? Will he give a clear, categoric assurance to the House and the steel industry that it is the intention of the Government to maintain the steel industry? Does he accept that sufficient sacrifices have already been made, and that it is now the turn of other people to make sacrifices?

Mr. Jenkin: I have said that in a number of different ways.

Mr. Orme: This a a publicly owned industry, and the House is entitled to know about future redundancies. How many redundancies are forecast for the end of this year, for the end of January and by the end of March when the external financing limits will be decided? There is a strong suspicion that the Secretary of State is waiting for these redundancies to take place before the external financing limits are arrived at. Did not the Secretary of State blurt out the truth when he talked about "stretching it out"? Does he not want to stretch it out until after the general election?
We wish to have a debate on steel as soon as we return after the recess. We shall not wait until March, where the corporate plan will have been prepared. My hon. Friends and many Conservative Members wish to debate the issue, and we want the debate at the earliest opportunity.

Mr. Jenkin: The question of time for a debate is for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. It might be wiser to wait for further and more definite figures, which the corporation will now produce on the basis of my statement this afternoon. That is a matter for the House.
I repeat to the right hon. Gentleman the point that I made to my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery). The problem that the Government faced when confronted with the serious collapse of the finances of BSC was whether we should adhere to the path that we had set Mr. MacGregor. We wished him to achieve viability this year or at least as swiftly as possible, at whatever cost, but we then had to decide whether to recognise that it would be wrong to take irrevocable decisions on major closures at a time of such uncertainty and at the trough of the recession. It was for that reason that it seemed to us sensible—although at some cost to the taxpayer, which will become clear when we have the figures—to extend the period before which viability would be accepted. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will think that on balance that was a wise decision, because it was not an easy decision to make, although I think that it was the right one.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Statement, Mr. Secretary Edwards.

Mr. James Tinn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I recognise your difficulty in selecting Members to ask questions, but is it not unfortunate that on a statement on the future of the steel industy an hon. Member whose constituency contains one of the five major plants affected is not called to express a view?

Mr. Speaker: I allowed 55 minutes for questions on the statement, which is nearly 20 minutes longer than is usual for a statement. I have done my utmost, as the House must realise, to try to be fair to hon. Members. If we are to get to the next statement, we must end at some time. I thought that I had covered each of the five major plants. If I did not, I am sorry, and I hope that the House will allow me to call an hon. Member from either side who is involved.

Mr. Tinn: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Is the Minister aware that it is a measure of the harrowing times that the industry has passed through that on Teesside, despite the further 1,700 jobs that are to be lost, the decision to keep the five plants will be greeted with a sigh of relief as it gives each area an opportunity to fight back for future recovery? The loss of any of the major plants would have deprived the area of that opportunity.
With regard to productivity, does the Minister recognise that large modern plants such as those we have in the United Kingdom depend upon high output for low unit costs? That high output was achieved earlier in the year, but the low productivity now is a consequence of the surge of imports coming not only from the EEC but from South Africa and Japan. Will the Minister do something about that?

Mr. Jenkin: I am grateful to the hon. Member, and I think that he will join with me in deploring the scaremongering indulged in by the right hon. Member for Stockton (Mr. Rodgers) a few days ago about the future of the Teesside plant.
The Government and the Community have taken quite vigorous action to stop imports from third countries, mandatory import quotas have been put on steel from Czechoslovakia and Bulgaria, there is an anti-dumping order on the import of beams from Spain, anti-dumping actions are being considered by the United Kingdom producers of pig iron against Brazil, sheet and plate from Brazil may also be subject to anti-dumping action, and anti-dumping investigations are under way against Argentina, Brazil, Canada and Venezuela with regard to hot rolled coil. We are determined to do everything that we can to restore the stability of the market.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Will my right hon. Friend accompany his commitment of extra public funds giving these five British steel centres the opportunity to save themselves by ensuring with his right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development that public funds are not committed to overseas aid which would have the effect of increasing still further surplus steel-making capacity elsewhere in the world? This is happening in Indonesia and in Singapore.

Mr. Jenkin: I wish that I could think that action along the lines advocated by my hon. Friend would have the results for which he hopes. My fear is that the steel works would be built by other countries with steel produced in other countries and that the return would go to other countries. Where a Third world country is determined to have its own steel works, the British steel and engineering industries are right to bid for that work and to get jobs back here in Britain.

Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Before the hon. Member for Thornaby (Mr. Wrigglesworth) advances his point of order—though, of course, I must not speculate about its contents—I should point out that I called his party's spokesman on the subject. I hope that the hon. Gentleman's point of order is not about not being called.

Mr. Jenkin: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister cannot know any better than I do what the hon. Gentleman's point of order is.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: I want to try to be helpful to you, if I can, Mr. Speaker, in the dilemma which you face because of the urgency that I know hon. Members feel when a statement of this sort is before the House and many more hon. Members from the Back Benches want to get in than can.
Is it not grossly unfair that, after the Front Bench spokesman for the official Opposition has asked about 12 questions at the beginning of questions on the statement, he then has a second opportunity to ask another string of questions, stimulating a long response from the Secretary of State and taking up time which hon. Members could use to ask their own questions?

Mr. Speaker: I do not think so or I should not have again called the right hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme).

Rate Support Grant (Wales)

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Nicholas Edwards): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the Welsh rate support grant settlement for 1983–84.
I am today announcing to the Welsh consultative council on local government finance the details of the 1983–84 RSG settlement. I have arranged for copies of the final text of my statement to the consultative council to be placed in the Library of the House. I am also laying before the House today the Welsh rate support grant report for 1983–84.
I have also laid supplementary reports for 1981–82 and 1982–83. These adjust the amount of block grant payable to reflect adjustments in relevant expenditure and, consequently, changes in GRE and grant. They also affect the grant reductions announced in July in respect of the current and total expenditure overspends in the two years.
The main features of the settlement for 1983–84, which broadly confirm the intentions I announced in July, are as follows. The total of relevant expenditure provision accepted for grants is £1,385 million. This comprises £1,205 million for current expenditure and £180 million for non-current items. Aggregate Exchequer grant will be £975 million, comprising £114·7 million for specific grants, £31 million for transport supplementary grant, £1·8 million for national parks supplementary grant, and £827·5 million for the rate support grants. Domestic rate relief is unchanged at 18½p in the pound. This costs £25 million, leaving £802·5 million for distribution as block grant.
The settlement is a very fair one. Current expenditure provision is increased by £79 million, or about 7 per cent. Put another way, it is equivalent to about 5 per cent. more current expenditure than in authorities' revised budgets for the current year.
Since July, interest rates have fallen markedly and inflation has fallen faster than anticipated and is now forecast to be 5 per cent. next year. However, I have not reduced the amounts previously announced, which makes it easier for local authorities to keep their expenditure within the settlement provision.
Aggregate Exchequer grant is £975 million—an increase of £32 million, or about 3½ per cent. I am satisfied that, if authorities' expenditure is kept within provision, on average there need be hardly any increase in rates next year.
An important objective of the settlement is to influence Welsh local authorities to keep their expenditure at a level the country can afford; and, to help achieve that objective, I have toughened the block grant mechanisms.
This mechanism will be of benefit to ratepayers where authorities spend close to GRE; but authorities must recognise that increases in expenditure above the cash increases provided by the settlement will lead to additional burdens on their ratepayers.
I have also set individual authority expenditure targets. Targets complement the block grant mechanisms and are helpful in letting authorities know exactly where they stand. This allows me to withold grant in a discriminate manner. I do not wish to withold grant, but, if it becomes necessary to do so, the grant withheld at the individual

authority level should be related directly to an authority's expenditure performance. The target system I have used achieves this aim.
The targets I have set can be achieved by all authorities. Every authority's target allows a cash increase in its current expenditure. After making allowance for the reduction in authorities' national insurance surcharge next year and a modest amount of budget drift, the minimum current expenditure cash increase is 3 per cent. and the maximum 7 per cent.
Should grant withholding be necessary, the grant withheld will not exceed the amount of the overall net expenditure excess. There is an upper limit on the amount of grant holdback for any particular authority and also a maximum rate poundage for grant withholding for different levels of overspending.
The overriding need is for continued restraint in local authority expenditure. Some progress has been made, but more is needed. The settlement is a very fair one. We have increased the expenditure provision and aggregate Exchequer grant. The expenditure targets set are all capable of being achieved.
There is no reason why local authorities should not keep their expenditure within the settlement provision. In that case, there need be virtually no rate increases next year. Indeed, if authorities apply part of the substantial increase in their balances which has occurred this year, there could be significant rate reductions. This would be of enormous benefit to all ratepayers and especially to industry and commerce.
The opportunity is there. I look to Welsh local authorities to seize it.

Mr. Alec Jones: I refer to the relevant expenditure figure of £1,385 million. Will the Secretary of State confirm that local authorities, which undoubtedly know their problems best, do not share the rosy and cosy optimism which the right hon. Gentleman expressed today that this figure would enable them to maintain their existing level of services and have no rate increases?
Does the right hon. Gentleman understand that unemployment in Wales, now more than 16·7 per cent., increases the number of demands on local government services? We have, for example, more 16-plus students in colleges, more children applying for free school meals, more clothing allowances for pupils and more elderly people needing help from the social services. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that local authorities also have added responsibilities with the transfer to them of housing benefits and the increased level of applications for improvement grants? To meet these extra demands and added responsibilities means either cutting other services, which is virtually impossible after several years of cuts, or overspending according to the Government' s guidelines?
Why should democratically elected local authorities be penalised if they choose to use part of their balances to maintain services or to increase job numbers? Is the Mid-Glamorgan county council, for example, to be branded a criminal spendthrift because it proposes to use some of its balances to employ more teachers and to buy more books and other equipment? In view of current criticisms of education provision, surely such action should be commended.
Will the Secretary of State confirm that cutting the level of rate support grant to 70·5 per cent. of relevant


expenditure, which is at least the third consecutive cut, means that the average increase of rate levels in Wales will be about 7 per cent., which is more than 10 per cent. higher than if the present level of RSG had been maintained? If that estimate is wrong, what effect does the right hon. Gentleman think this reduction will have on rate levels?
As for council rents, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that after his 85p increase, council rents will have risen by 127 per cent. between 1979–80 and 1983–84? What other section of the community has faced such large increases in housing costs? After this increase, how many housing authorities in Wales will be in surplus on their housing revenue accounts? Is it intended that council rents shall rise to pay for other council services or to finance reductions in the levels of Government support?
I want to ask about the national parks supplementary grant of £1·8 million. The Secretary of State will be aware that the national parks of Snowdonia, Brecon Beacons and the Pembroke coast have increased responsibilities stemming from the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that there is no decrease in real terms in the grant to the national parks and that it takes account of the added responsibilities as a result of the 1981 Act? Despite the Secretary of State's pious platitudes, which we have heard on every occasion when he has introduced the rate support grant settlement, this year, again, we face reduced services, higher rates, increased unemployment or a combination of all three.

Mr. Edwards: The right hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Jones) referred to the relevant expenditure figure and increased burdens falling on local authorities. Local authorities, like others, will benefit substantially from the reduction in the inflation rate and the forecasts for the coming year. Inflation has fallen significantly since the original budgets were prepared in the summer. I have not, however, reduced the provision, so there is an added margin for local authorities.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the cost of financing the planned level of capital expenditure in Wales. Total relevant expenditure takes into account the cost of financing that planned level of capital expenditure.
The right hon. Gentleman spoke about the prudent use of balances. He does not perhaps realise that since local authorities prepared their original budgets in the summer, the estimate of balances for this year, which was then about £70 million, has increased to about £130 million. It gives local authorities real scope to use some of their unexpected increases in balances to hold down rates, particularly for industrial ratepayers.
I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's reference to Mid-Glamorgan. Press reports say that Mid-Glamorgan intends to overspend its expenditure target by about £9 million, which would lead to grant loss of £4·6 million. The leader of the council is quoted as saying that if the Government want to commit political suicide, they should try clawbacks in the run-up to an election.
The county must not be under any illusion about my intentions. If there is an aggregate overspend in Wales, I shall not hesitate to go ahead with clawbacks from Mid-Glamorgan or any other authority. Mid-Glamorgan ratepayers should reflect that a budget of £9 million over target means an additional 33p on their rates—a 20 per

cent. increase in the coming year. Worse still, non-domestic ratepayers would be affected by a levy of £30 for every person they employed. That would be an outrage when anxiety is being expressed about unemployment. It is an appalling prospect, and I call upon the county council to think again. The county's target allows a cash increase of 4 per cent. above the amount it is likely to spend on the basis of its revised budget. It is an achievable target.
The right hon. Gentleman suggested that the settlement implied rate increases of 7 per cent. I do not accept that. On the basis of the mathematics, which have been accepted by the local authorities, there is no reason why on average local authorities should increase rates. If they use some of their large balances, there is real scope for reductions.
The Labour Administration of which the right hon. Gentleman was a member said that it was right for the Government to increase council rents in line with the increase in the cost of living, but they failed to do so. We have carried out a catching-up exercise. It is right that we should, because if council rents are set too low, even by the previous Government's standards, there will be less money available for capital spending, new housing and housing improvements. In a previous statement to the House I announced an increase of £17 million in capital spending above previously planned levels.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the national parks, and I shall write to him on that specific point.
The right hon. Gentleman said that there was no scope for reducing rates. I disagree. I suggest that if £45 million of the balances were used by Welsh local authorities, there could be a 10 per cent. reduction in rates. I cannot think of a better gift to local industry and employment prospects.

Mr. Geraint Howells: Is the Secretary of State satisfied that Welsh local authorities are treated fairly compared with their counterparts in England and Scotland? What action will he take if all the Welsh local authorities propose a rate increase next year of between 10 per cent. and 20 per cent?

Mr. Edwards: The settlement is extremely fair compared with England. In part it reflects the reasonable attitude shown by Welsh authorities compared with authorities in England over the past year or two years. The Welsh figures for increases in relevant expenditure and the amount of grant percentage compare favourably with those in England.
As to rate increases, I have already made it clear that if local authorities in aggregate and individually exceed targets there will be a holdback. Rate increases are matters for local authorities to determine. As a result of this settlement, they have it within their power not just to hold, but to reduce, rates. I hope that they will seize the opportunity that I have given them.

Mr. Tom Hooson: While the overall proposed allocation appears to be generous, given the need to control public expenditure, will my right hon. Friend assure the rural districts and counties in Wales that he will review the sparsity factor when he meets local authorities?

Mr. Edwards: As I have said on many occasions to my hon. Friend, who has been assiduous in raising this point, we look at that matter regularly. The local authorities agree the method of distribution among themselves. I


cannot hold out any immediate prospect of change. I know that my hon. Friend has the most responsible local authorities in his area, and I am sure that they will achieve the objectives that I have set.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: The Secretary of State is inadvertently misleading the House and Wales. According to the figures that have been announced, there cannot be a reduction in the rates without a severe effect on services. The Secretary of State shakes his head. Does he accept that in the county of Gwynedd there must be a cut of £1·5 million in services or the county will be fined £500,000? Does he accept the figures given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Jones) that the aggregate Exchequer grant of £975 million in relation to the total relevant expenditure of £1,385 million gives a ratio of 70·4 per cent. compared with 72·5 per cent. last year? The ratepayers' burden will be increased from 27·5 per cent. to 29·6 per cent. next year. As a result, there will be a 7 per cent. or 8 per cent. increase in the rates. In my county that means a 9p increase. The Secretary of State cannot say what he has said.

Mr. Edwards: I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman says. Local authorities do not accept my general point, but they accept the mathematics on which my settlement is based. It arises from a comparison with and relationship between the two years and the assumptions and over-provision by local authorities last year relative to the budgets and expenditure this year. It is complicated, but on the basis of those assumptions, and without using any of the balances to which I have referred, we believe that on average local authorities need not increase rates. The position of one local authority will differ from that of another.
However, as I pointed out, there is considerable scope for using the balances to produce rate reductions in Wales as a whole.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Is it not clear that if local authorities apply the same strict criteria to contain expenditure as the Government have done—at least in

every sector except, perhaps, steel—there should be no substantial increases in domestic rates in Wales next year? Do not councils in areas of high unemployment face a severe and painful dilemma: that if they increase rate-borne expenditure to deal with the consequences of high unemployment that very increase in rates will frighten away potential employers?

Mr. Edwards: Faced with that dilemma, one of the few contributions that would help local industry to provide more jobs and reduce the burdens on local authorities would be a 10 per cent. cut in the rate bill. That would be of direct assistance to industry. I cannot think of anything more damaging than the proposals of Mid-Glamorgan—apparently for political as much as any other reasons—for an enormous increase in expenditure, because that would fall directly on employers and reduce employment in that area.

Mr. Tom Ellis: The right hon. Gentleman said that the targets he has set can be achieved by all authorities. On what basis was that statement made? Was it made after consultation with all or any of the authorities and with their concurrence, or was it the result of his Department's calculations? If the latter, does he know whether any authority, apart from Mid-Glamorgan, will overshoot the targets?

Mr. Edwards: I do not want to make general forecasts about the intention of local authorities. In the past, a great majority of Welsh local authorities have sought to meet the Government's objectives and to avoid penalty. If a council such as Mid-Glamorgan acts in the way suggested, it will put at risk all other Welsh local authorities. As well as such a council taking more than its fair share of local authority grant available from Government, it will make an aggregate overspend more likely. Therefore, it is a particularly selfish act.
I believe that the targets are attainable. I stand by my statement that, on the whole, there is no need for local authorities to contemplate increased rates or significant reductions in the services that they provide.

European Community (Budget Rebates)

Mr. Nigel Spearing: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the European Community budget rebates and the powers of the Assembly.
It is well known that last Friday the Chancellor of the Exchequer attended a Council of Minister's meeting in Brussels relating to the proposed £480 million refund to Britain and to the budget arrangements. This was necessary as last Thursday that sum was not approved by the Assembly of the European Community.
A reading of the treaties concerned with this issue, and of a decision taken in Brussels on 30 June 1982, show that the Assembly has the final word in these matters. Further, it is clear that the Assembly wishes to exercise its powers over these financial matters, not only in relation to the sum involved this year but in requiring a permanent and lasting solution to Britain's budget problem; a determination of subsequent demands; and the power to determine those items of domestic United Kingdom expenditure that should be approved annually.
These advertised desires raise three constitutional issues. First, can the Assembly ask for these powers? The Community Treaty suggests that it can. Secondly, can it require a permanent arrangement? The treaty suggests that it can if the money is to be paid this year. Thirdly, can it ask for future control of United Kingdom refunds and, in particular, individual projects? The treaty suggests and shows that, as these moneys are non-obligatory, the final word lies with the European Community. Subject to confirmation of those submissions, that gives rise to several important matters with regard to the structure and constitution of the European Community and the powers of this House.
The first is the balance of power of the Assembly, the Council of Ministers and the Commission within the constitution of the European Community. Matters relating to the United Kingdom are thus being used as a lever to give greater powers to the Assembly. Secondly, it is clear that the Assembly wishes to determine the nature and amount of expenditure of public funds for domestic purposes within the United Kingdom. However, past debates have shown that the United Kingdom Government have made it clear that they regard refunds of moneys collected from import levies, customs duties and VAT taxes in the United Kingdom as sums to be expended on projects selected by them as being comparable with other domestic items outlined in the White Paper on public expenditure.
Subject to any firm statement by the Government, together with evidence that they could produce, that would clearly negate the propositions that I have outlined. However, it is clear that between now and 17 January, when the House returns from the Christmas Recess, extensive negotiations will have to take place between the Government, the Council of Ministers and, conceivably, the Assembly.
These matters are also the business of the House, and we should debate them before the House rises this week. The debate on the Christmas Adjournment, particularly in its modified form, is not suited to these matters of urgent public importance, and they therefore merit debate under the Standing Order No. 9 procedure.
One of the features that you, Mr. Speaker, must take into account is the likelihood of a clarificatory statement by the Government that could confirm or qualify the submissions that I have made. You will also appreciate that I can make no assumptions about such a statement being made and, therefore, seek to raise this important matter at the first opportunity.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman gave me notice before 12 noon today that he would seek leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely
the European Community budget rebates and the powers of the Assembly.
As the House knows, under Standing Order No. 9 I am directed to take into account the several factors set out in the order but to give no reasons for my decision. I have given careful consideration to the hon. Gentleman's representations, but I must rule that his submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

Mr. David Stoddart: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My hon. Friend has just raised an important matter, although you have been unable to agree that there should be an emergency debate. Even though it was important, I noticed that no Minister was present. That shows grave discourtesy to the House and, indeed, to——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) and I were the only two people aware of what would be raised.

Later—

Mr. Spearing: Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Stoddart), Mr. Speaker. I am grateful for your explanation of the matter, but the Leader of the House is present. If the Government intend to make an announcement on the issue, I wonder whether he could say something about it.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have given my ruling on the application under Standing Order No. 9, and I know that the House is anxious to get to the Adjournment debate.

Questions to Ministers

Mr. Christopher Murphy: On a totally different point of order, Mr. Speaker. Earlier this afternoon a number of Opposition Members were clearly seen to be reading their supplementary questions, in particular—I regret to mention it in his absence—the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours). Will you please clarify your ruling on this important matter?

Mr. Speaker: I did not notice the hon. Member reading his question. We are all aware that in this House we do not read our speeches or our questions, although from time to time there is copious use of notes.

Adjournment (Christmas)

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That this House at its rising on Thursday do adjourn till Monday 17th January.—[Mr. Goodlad.]

Mr. Jack Ashley: I believe that this House should not adjourn until we have discussed the major cutback announced by the Michelin company at the weekend. The loss of 4,000 jobs—one third of the total work force—is a significant event, not only for Stoke-on-Trent and North Staffordshire, but for the country as a whole.
I want to make an angry protest about the current economic malaise of North Staffordshire. This once prosperous area is being blighted, through no fault of its own, because Government policies have irtensified the damaging effects of the world recession. There are already 32,000 people in the dole queues in North Staffordshire, largely because the pottery industry has been badly hit. Some of us, including my hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Cant), Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mr. Forrester) and Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) have pressed the Government to do something about it. We have hoped against hope that something could be done to alleviate the distress and misery in the area.
Instead of being helped, we sustained a terrible body blow at the weekend, when the Michelin company announced that it was cutting no fewer than 4,000 jobs in the next two years, and that about 1,000 of those jobs would be in Stoke-on-Trent. The announcement turned the gloom of many people into despair, and caused deep anxiety among some people who have jobs, because it shows that conditions in the area are deteriorating, not improving.
The Government should learn a lesson from this major blow to the economy of North Staffordshire. When a fine firm like Michelin, which is well organised and highly competitive, with a first-class labour force, is forced to cut its capacity by one third, it shows that there is something grotesquely wrong with the Government's policy. It is one thing to try to make some sections of industry leaner and fitter. It is quite another thing to push theory to such impractical limits that our best firms are mutilated and a skilled labour force is devastated. The Government will destroy some of the most efficient sections of our economy if they persist in their restrictive policies, which are increasing unemployment. Of course the world recession has had an impact. It would be unfair and unrealistic to deny that. However, the Government should act, and act urgently, to help rather than hinder workers and industries. I want to put forward some proposals.
First, the most decisive change that the Government can make is to pursue policies that will ensure a more realistic exchange rate, because the present rate has crippled industry. The Michelin company suffered a big fall in its export and domestic markets, due in large part to the high exchange rate. In my view, there is something schizophrenic about a Government who call for greater efficiency in industry, while shackling it in the straitjacket of an unrealistic exchange rate. The recent fall in the rate has been inadequate to ensure the future of Britain's manufacturing industry.
Secondly, the Government should adopt a reflationary policy, but that policy must be designed to help our workers and industries, rather than those of our competitors.
Thirdly, the Government should reassess the whole question of imports. The principle of minimum restrictions on the entry of imports is fine in theory, but it is now destructive in practice. The workers of Stoke-on-Trent, North Staffordshire and the Michelin company are being badly damaged by imports in two ways. New foreign cars, complete with five tyres, are now taking over the British market and pushing out home products which relied on British tyres. In addition, the replacement tyre market is being flooded with cheap Far Eastern tyres. We want a tough, hard-headed and practical programme of import controls, as the severity of the cuts at the Michelin factory underlines.
Finally, I suggest that the Government should anticipate and respond to the long-term implications of the disastrouss developments in British industry. At present, they are failing to do so. It is recognised in the West Midlands that even when the recession ends, industrial capacity is unlikely to be made up, because of technological developments. Unless, in the long term, we develop a new approach to the organisation of work, the awful gap between the employed and the unemployed will become wider and more divisive. Enlightened politicians in the West Midlands, such as Arthur Cholerton, the chairman of the West Midlands forum of county councils, are pressing for comprehensive discussion of the implications, to find new ways of coping with these complex economic problems. If those problems are not solved, we shall face serious social as well as economic consequences. It is time that the Government gave a strong push to such discussions, so that the whole nation may benefit from the scientific genius of man.
Without those measures, we shall sink into an industrial abyss from which we may never emerge. Already human skills and industrial machinery are rotting. If the Government fail to act, they will get and deserve the epitaph from the people that they were elected in hope and ejected in despair.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: Having long ago contested a West Midlands seat, I am tempted to follow the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley), but I shall stick to the subject of which I have given notice both to the Chair and to the Leader of the House. That subject is the goings-on in the Northern Ireland Assembly. They require the attention of the House, which gave it birth, and enlightenment from Ministers before we agree to rise. No one knows better than my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that the Northern Ireland Act 1982 carried less than wholehearted consent in the House. However, when the Northern Ireland Assembly becomes the scene and occasion of a constitutional impasse, and its Presiding Officer, of all people, appears to be acting ultra vires, those who claimed and hoped most from the Assembly should be the most concerned that it should be conducted lawfully.
The House is aware that the Presiding Officer is the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder)——

Mr. Dennis Skinner: What is the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) doing?

Sir John Biggs-Davison: I shall come to what he is doing all in due time. I hope, if I am not interrupted, to confine my remarks to four minutes.
The hon. Member for Down, North, the Presiding Officer of the Assembly, has now appointed Chairmen and Deputy Chairmen to six Committees of the Assembly under section 4(2) of the Northern Ireland Act. That section states:
appointments.…shall be such as to secure, so far as practicable, that the balance of parties in the Assembly is reflected in.…the chairmen taken as a whole".
How has the Presiding Officer fulfilled his statutory duty? He has appointed three Chairmen from the Official Unionist Party, two Chairmen from the Democratic Unionist Party, and one Chairman from the Alliance Party of Northern Ireland. That does not reflect the balance of parties in the Assembly, unless one takes the view that the words "so far as practicable" mean that he has acted in accordance with the statute. However, the words "so far as practicable" are surely to be construed as they are when Standing and Select Committees are formed in this House of Commons.
The Northern Ireland Assembly models itself closely on this House. Indeed, the Presiding Officer, Mr. Deputy Speaker, calls himself "Mr. Speaker". Both parliamentary practice and a common sense reading of the words
the balance of parties in the Assembly
suggest to me at any rate that the intention is to meet the difficulty of not being able to put to useful use a fraction of a chairman. The words in the Act are surely not meant to cover the abstention of elected members of the Assembly and the absenteeism or abstentionism of Northern Ireland political parties. Surely the phrase
the balance of parties in the Assembly
must mean the parties elected to the Assembly rather than the members of those parties who may from time to time take their seat or attend.

Mr. Skinner: Gerrymandering.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: It might be.
If one took the contrary view, the words "members of the Assembly" in section (4)(1)(a) of the Act would have to be interpreted as excluding elected Assemblymen who have not taken their seats or who do not attend. What then becomes of the famous 70 per cent. rule in section 1(4)(a) for the submission of proposals for devolution? Seventy per cent. of members attending, as opposed to 70 per cent. of all members elected, would not satisfy the important cross-community criterion.
Those few who are enthusiasts for the Assembly should be the first to require an answer to the charge that the Presiding Officer, in his appointment of Chairmen, is acting ultra vires of the Northern Ireland Act 1982. It follows that any appointment of deputy chairmen and members of Committees made in the same manner is likewise invalid and that no such appointees may lawfully be paid salaries. The Northern Ireland Assembly is a creature of Parliament and must conform to the statute. The House should be satisfied that it will be rising for Christmas with conscience clear. I hope that I am not unduly prejudiced if I say that if the matters can be resolved in no other way, the prorogation of the Assembly might be to the advantage of the Province, the public interest and the public purse.

Mr. James Molyneaux: I do not wish to follow the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison), because the argument that he has been advancing puts the case concisely. It might be useful for him if I quote the Speaker of the Assembly, who said:
The legal requirement is that the distribution must be in accordance with the number of seats of each political party in the Assembly. A straightforward allocation on the basis of election results would produce the following situation".
That would appear to support what the hon. Gentleman has so validly brought to the attention of the House.
It gives me great pleasure to refer to the speech made by the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley), first, because of his record of genuine concern for people who find themselves in difficulties through no fault of their own, and, secondly, because both our constituencies have suffered from the same cause over the past weekend, since the House met last Friday.
Like the other matters brought to your attention today, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the one to which I seek to refer is of extreme urgency. It is the closure and, in my case, the consequences of the closure, of the Michelin tyre factory at Mallusk in County Antrim. I accept that multinational companies have a habit of making cold-blooded decisions without any regard for the interests of the work force that has served them loyally and faithfully for many years. Nor do they have any great sense of obligation to the United Kingdom's taxpayers, whose money they have been prepared to accept and expend over the years. However, I think that hon. Members will agree that Parliament has a right and a duty to protect the work force and the taxpayer. It is for that reason that I wish to stress the urgency of the action which, I hope, can be taken by the Government and the importance of a close and continuous watch on the matter during the recess.
The decision to close the Michelin factory was announced without any warning on Friday. It had been said that the Northern Ireland Office had the first sign of that only seven days before and that would seem to show that the company was not really interested in any further Government assistance, since it would obviously have been impossible for the Department of Economic Development or the Northern Ireland Office to investigate, assess the need and put together a package of aid within a week. Therefore, the House will wish to ask whether Michelin asked for any assistance. Was an offer of assistance made? Can we be told how much was offered? Did the company reject such an offer or was it just not interested? We need answers to those questions if we are to judge whether a stay of execution would be valuable in giving the Government and the company opportunity for second thoughts, particularly over the Christmas Recess. If the answer to that question is "No", we shall be in a position to examine other lines of action.
Can any arrangement be made between the Government and the other Michelin factory in Ballymena to extend job opportunities there? That company produces a different type of product and, with the guarantee that it will remain in production, there should be a strong possibility of expansion when world trading conditions, I hope, improve. Will it not be possible in the immediate future to transfer back to the factories in Great Britain, many of which have escaped the axe, those whose posts could be filled by Ulster workers and specialist staff?
I assure the House that I am not motivated by any notion of an industrial "Brits out" policy. However, surely it would make economic sense to withdraw those who come from outside Northern Ireland and who are in receipt of what is called the "white man's allowance" and to replace them with indigenous workers, who would not insist on danger money for the privilege of working in their own country.
It the Mallusk factory is closed on the ground of unprofitability, it must surely make sense to reduce labour costs in Ballymena along the lines that I have suggested. I hope that the Government will consider measures to prevent the Ballymena plant from being scrapped in a few years' time, when its initial grant conditions have expired. That has been the all too common pattern for multinational companies. We must also consider the other casualties among the companies that supplied and serviced Michelin. Admittedly, they are mostly in a different category from those that suffered severely as a result of the De Lorean collapse, although some of the companies are the same. The Michelin company is a going concern and will no doubt discharge its outstanding liabilities. However, many of its back-up companies incurred heavy capital costs in re-equipping themselves to meet Michelin's specific needs.
Friday's announcement will have led to great nervousness in banking circles. If credit facilities and other backings are withdrawn, those companies may find themselves in great difficulty, and I fear that many will perish before Parliament returns on 17 January. Therefore, there is an urgent need for the Government to find ways of restoring confidence and of providing credit backing to keep from ruination the many companies whose disappearance would leave a gaping, and perhaps this time fatal, wound in the ailing body of the Northern Ireland economy.

Mr. Fergus Montgomery: On 29 July we debated the Summer Adjournment and I raised two issues. The first was the restoration of capital punishment for terrorist murders, which I raised in the aftermath of the tragic murder of guardsmen and horses in London just prior to that debate, when public feelings were running high. The second issue concerned the citizens of the Republic of Eire having the right to vote in general elections in Britain. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House replied to my first point and added, rightly, that not long ago we had had a free vote on capital punishment. However, he completely ignored my second point.
I raise that second point again because tonight the Labour group on Trafford council is to move the following motion:
This Council deplores the idea being advanced by some Members of Parliament and certain sections of the Press that Irish citizens resident in Britain should lose their right to vote in British elections; it condemns the proposal as discriminatory, racist and vindictive and hopes that other Local Authorities will follow Trafford's example by passing motions similar to this one, thus demonstrating the strength of public opposition.
I cannot see anything discriminatory, racist or vindictive about my attitude. I am of Irish descent, but I cannot understand why citizens of the Republic of Eire should be accorded preferential treatment in Britain. Since we are being accused of being racist and discriminatory, perhaps we should extend the law to allow EC nationals to vote in our elections. If I had been living in Eire during the recent


general election, I would not have been allowed to vote. On reflection, I should have liked to vote and hon. Members need not guess which party I would have voted against. However, we have no reciprocal arrangement with the Dublin Government.
If citizens of Eire can vote in Britain it makes nonsense of our electoral system. After all, citizens of Eire can come and go as freely as they please. They are free from any immigration controls. This country has been let down by successive Governments, because they have failed to tackle the problem. I hope that the Leader of the House will tell us the Government's thinking on that point.
My main reason for taking part in the debate is to raise the issue of fuel standing charges. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Ward) initiated an Adjournment debate on this issue not long ago. However, we are still awaiting a solution. Almost every hon. Member will have met constituents, particularly among the elderly who live on their own, who can produce fuel bills showing that the standing charge is far greater than the amount of energy consumed. The problem has been with us for some time. The Labour Government set up an interdepartmental inquiry in 1976. During the Adjournment debate on 13 December, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Energy replied:
The overall document, which is an impressive and cogently argued one, won the full-hearted commendation of the then Secretary of State for Energy, the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) who said in his signed foreword to the document:
'After considering the group's report, the Government have concluded that none of these possibilities offers a satisfactory way of helping poor consumers with their fuel bills.'
Thus, standing charges survived the 1976 review."—[Official Report, 13 December 1982; Vol. 34, c. 100.]
Under this Government, an independent review of standing charges has been commissioned and, as a further measure, the Secretary of State for Energy has proposed that standing charges should represent no more than 50 per cent. of a domestic consumer's bill. That is a speedy and effective way of helping some of the poorest people of this country.
It is tragic that elderly people should have to watch carefully the amount of energy that they consume and that they should then find that their efforts to save money have been sabotaged by an excessive standing charge. At this time of year, when pensioners need so much warmth, I wonder why we have to wait so long for a decision from the powers that be. It would have been a happy thought to make the announcement before Christmas—but then, we realise that the soulless nationalised industries are not very good at playing the role of Santa Claus. Apparently, the gas and electricity boards have said that they would like to await the results of the independent inquiry. I have a feeling that they may be dragging their feet and if someone in authority were to spur them along, we might get a speedy decision.
Pensioners who live on their own have special problems. For example, I should be interested to know what the Government intend to do about rates. The rating system takes no account of someone's ability to pay. However, at least under the rating system the neediest people can be helped through a rate rebate. The amount of water rate claimed is based on the rateable value of the property in question. No account is taken of the amount

of water consumed. Therefore, the pensioner who lives on his own pays the same in rates and water rates as a family living in an identical house next door, in which there may be three or four wage earners. That gives rise to a great sense of injustice among many of our elderly people. There are rate rebates, and I am curious to know why there is no rebate for water rates.
We must do more to help the elderly, particularly those who live on their own. Hon. Members will admit that at this time of year warmth is essential for the elderly. Therefore, it is essential that the Government should do something about standing charges.

Mr. Skinner: Why did the hon. Gentleman not vote with us?

Mr. Montgomery: If the hon. Gentleman wants to make a speech, he should do so. The hon. Gentleman is very clever now. He is always telling us what we should do, but the Labour Party had a chance to do it during almost six years of office. In 1976, the then Secretary of State for Energy said that nothing would be done about standing charges. It is easy, in Opposition, to promise things but it is much more difficult to implement them when in Government.

Mr. Skinner: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in the past few months the Government have introduced a Housing and Building Control Bill—which the hon. Gentleman voted for—which will abolish the sort of rebates that the hon. Gentleman would like to see applied to water? A few months ago, when we debated getting rid of standing charges for pensioners, the hon. Gentleman would not join the Opposition in the Lobby to vote for that.

Mr. Montgomery: The hon. Gentleman is making an entirely different point, and he well knows it. If he wishes to make a speech he can do so. It is very easy now that he and his party are in Opposition to come forward with quick solutions to the problems faced by the country. During the long period when his party was in Government very little was done and the electors took their revenge at the 1979 election.
I hope that my right hon. Friend as Leader of the House can do something to ensure that good news to help those people faced with heavy standing charges can be announced before we rise for the Christmas Recess.

Mr. J. Grimond: I have much sympathy with what was said by the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Montgomery) about standing charges. I do not find that the wads of literature that some of the nationalised industries now send out with their bills are any compensation for the size of the bills. We require lower prices and not exhortations to use more of their products or to be told of different ways of paying the bills.
I wish to address my remarks particularly to fishing. I am disappointed that we are to have no debate on fishing before the House rises for the recess. The Leader of the House has promised that we shall have one early in the new year, and that no doubt is better than nothing, but in the meantime important meetings will take place this week about the EC arrangements on the common fisheries policy. Will we have a statement as a result of those meetings, because various matters must be cleared up, such as how Denmark is to be treated?
The Government's original announcement on the EC proposals was greeted with some apprehension by certain sections of the fishing industry. Since it was made I have had many conversations and communications with the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I should like to thank them for the trouble that they have taken, and to put on record what they said to me.
In a letter of 14 December, the Secretary of State for Scotland said:
I shall certainly be watching closely for any signs that Shetland waters are being over-fished: the proposed arrangements for the North of Scotland box give us a valuable means of controlling fishing effort in that area, and monitoring the situation so that I can react appropriately if the need arises. I share your concern for the long-term future of the fishing stocks around the United Kingdom, and for the long-term viability of the fishing industry. I am convinced that the CFP as proposed, with its full range of access, conservation, restructuring and control measures, offers excellent prospects to secure that future.
In another letter dated the same day, he said:
Accordingly it may reasonably be expected that foreign activity in the area"—
that is, the box—
will decline, while the traditional fishing pattern for local vessels will not be affected, and indeed their opportunities should be enhanced.
That is encouraging as far as it goes, but there is also the issue of future conservation in the North Sea in the light of the enormous catching power that is now being developed by various nations. At present it may well be said that the position is not too bad. In the third quarter of 1982 Shetland vessels landed fish to the value of £2,725,000, compared with a catch valued at £6,891,000 for the whole of 1981. In 1981 Shetland vessels landed 75,000 tonnes of edible fish, while in the third quarter of 1982 they landed 33,000 tonnes. Despite those figures, there is concern among fishermen about the long-term viability of the North Sea. As his letters show, that view is shared by the Secretary of State for Scotland. It is urgent that he explains in full detail either in a statement or in some other way how he will deal with industrial fishing. What are the ultimate arrangements? How will Denmark be handled? What resources are available for enforcing the CFP and how does he visualise future conservation?
Another important occurrence of the past week or so is that several fishermen's associations have resigned from the Scottish Fishermen's Association. Until now the Secretary of State has had a great many consultations with, and has principally been guided by, the Scottish Fishermen's Association. He has told me that in discussing management schemes he would of course consult the fishermen, but he indicated that he could not introduce management schemes, even though they were locally desired, if the Scottish Fishermen's Association was opposed to them. Now that that association has lost several of its members, it is time that the Secretary of State made a statement about how he regards future consultation with the industry.
In various parts of the North of Scotland and particularly in Orkney and Shetland there is a strong demand for local management schemes. The Secretary of State made it clear that he is not opposed to them, nor do they conflict with anything that has been said in Brussels. We are worried not only by the over-fishing by foreign vessels, but by the number of British vessels that may fish around Orkney and Shetland. Therefore we consider that

a management scheme, even though it may not be absolutely necessary at present, is essential for the future of the industry. I very much hope that, as he promised, the Secretary of State will very soon get together representatives from the various associations to discuss the proposed management schemes around Orkney and Shetland and around certain other parts of the coast of Scotland.
I regret that that now will presumably have to wait until the new year and upon the decision of the House on the CFP. It is becoming an urgent matter, and uncertainty in the industry will continue so long as we do not have a clear statement about how the CFP is to be worked out if Denmark stands out of it, and how we are to protect stocks in our own waters, not only from foreign vessels but from over-fishing by British vessels.

Sir Paul Hawkins: I do not believe it is right that we should leave the House for three or four weeks without a promise by the Government that they will help those who wish to farm on their own. At present, hundreds and even thousands of young farmers and people who have qualified as farmers seek land on which to carry on their profession. With land prices as they are today, there must be land for hire but little is available. If a farm becomes available for letting, hundreds of people apply—almost as many as come forward for a good safe Tory seat. It is distressing to have to choose one person from many well-trained young men and women. More often than not, the son of someone who already has a good farm is chosen because he can more easily raise the capital by using his father's farm as backing.
In passing, may I say that I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is listening, because I wish to get my remarks across not only to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food but to my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Who could be better to pass on my remarks than my right hon. Friend, who has deep knowledge of the countryside and is—although he will admit that he does not look the part—bred from good farming stock? Not only that, but he is known as a financial wizard. I hope that he likes those remarks.
Very belatedly, and after the Minister's deadline, the National Farmers Union and the Country Landowners Association came to a certain agreement which they believed would persuade landowners, private and institutional, to let rather than farm or sell land. I do not believe that the agreement will do all that is claimed for it, so I am not particularly upset by the Minister's decision not to legislate during this Parliament. The agreement needs to be improved and expanded. For instance, it must surely include fixed-term tenancies from 10 years to 30 or 40 years, during which someone could build a good pension and retire, so that the land would change hands.
The Council of Europe, to which I have been sent on a delegation from this Parliament, debated a detailed report on this matter about 12 months ago, and passed it unanimously to the Council of Ministers. It urged that active help be given to new entrants to farming and stated that probably one of the best ways to do this was to reshape taxation policies to encourage landowners to let. I shall quote one part of one paragraph which urges member States of the Council of Europe to


shape taxation and other policies so as to favour efficient family farming either on owner-occupied or tenanted land".
We should be aiming for family fanning to rejuvenate rural areas. If the Minister does not legislate by altering the Agricultural Holding Acts, what can be done? The greatest help that the Government could give to solving the problem would be by making fiscal changes in the next Budget. That would tilt taxation in favour of let land as opposed to land in hand or land being farmed by the owner. This proposal is not meant as a gift to large private or institutionalised landowners. The help could well be directed to medium or smaller sized holdings on a sliding scale. Detailed proposals have been made by a prominent land agent to the Treasury and I hope that these are being considered.
There has been a growth in the ownership of agricultural land by institutions such as pension funds. This applies to let land and land in hand. A report in the Eastern Daily Press of 10 December shows that these bodies—there are 30 of them involved, including pension funds and insurance companies—buy 50,000 acres a year, which is 8 to 12 per cent. of all land sold. They own about 500,000 acres which are let and farm another 115,000 acres.
My calculations are that the 115,000 acres would give between 250 and 300 young farmers an opportunity to farm on their own account. This could be multiplied many times if private landowners were similarly encouraged to let rather than take in hand.
In the eastern counties, the great arable lands of Norfolk, Suffolk, Isle of Ely, Cambridgeshire and Lincolnshire, there is certainly a need for a rural policy. Damage is being done to rural life in a way which I would never have believed 20 or 30 years ago. It must be a policy that is aimed at helping people to stay on the land and similar to the policies that have been introduced by the French and the Germans. A rural policy of the sort that I am urging would give young men and women the opportunity to farm on their own account. It would create lively communities thriving on agriculture and also create opportunities for small businesses and crafts to start in, perhaps, out-of-date farm buildings, which can remain a delight to the eye in the countryside compared with the large, modern concrete and asbestos buildings that are being erected.
On 11 June I wrote to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I shall quote two sentences from my letter. I am glad to say that he later arranged an appointment and I was able to speak to him. I wrote:
I am also concerned about the depopulation of the countryside by those whose living comes from the land. Their replacements in this part of the world to a considerable extent are farming enterprises run from London etc. by managers frequently changed and having responsibility for farming up to 10,000 hectares.
The House will be aware that that is about 25,000 acres. The paragraph continues:
Thus the enterprises are run extensively, with no livestock, a minimum of employees and not producing anything like the food that could be produced"—
that is per acre—
if there were … individual family farmers.
In the area that I represent, village life suffers from having no leaders in the villagers.
We must have a real rural policy that is based on getting more people working on the land and in small village industries that are connected with agriculture. Our population is far too urban-orientated. I think that fewer than 2 per cent. earn their living from the land, which is a dangerously low percentage. I am convinced that it is bad for the health of the nation, and certainly its political health.
I hope that during the recess my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will look at the good countryside of Great Britain, reflect a little and examine the structure of farming, especially in my area. I hope that they will return for the last year of so of the Government with a rural policy.

Mr. Douglas Jay: The House is being asked to adjourn for a month when our relations with the EC are in an even worse state of confusion than is normal nowadays. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) rightly mentioned fishing. I understand that tomorrow there is to be a Fishing Council of the EC, which will attempt for about the twentieth time to reach a settlement over the proposed common fisheries policy. Incidentally, there are only about 10 days left before the deadline threatened for 1 January, when no one knows what will happen.
Is it a fact that there is to be a Fishing Council tomorrow? Are we to have later this week at least a statement—presumably it will be made on Wednesday or Thursday—from the Minister telling us the result of the meeting, which is bound to be crucial for the residue of the British fishing industry after all the damage that it has suffered through our membership of the EC over the past 10 years? The House should not adjourn until it has been told what has been agreed at the meeting and what is to happen after 1 January. If there is not time for a debate, I hope that we shall have reasonable time to question the Minister.
There are several questions that should be answered, before the House adjourns, about the prospects for the fishing industry. We all know that if Britain had not joined the EEC the fishing industry would enjoy a 200-mile exclusive zone like Iceland and Norway. At present, it is merely hoping for a six-mile zone or a partial 12-mile zone. We know that responsibility for this rests on the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) and the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon), who in their hurry to get the Treaty of Accession settled and signed in December 1979 rushed ahead without any safeguards for the British industry after 31 December 1981. We know all those things. What we do not know, and should know before we adjourn, is what the position will be on and after 1 January, less than a fortnight away.
If no formal agreement is reached this week, could Denmark invade our fishing waters up to the shores of the United Kingdom? Will even the six-mile limit be protected? If the Government believe that the six-mile zone can be protected, what will be the legal basis for enforcing an exclusive zone in our waters and are we ready and able to protect the zone in the weeks ahead?
What will the position be under the so-called EC law, if no agreement is reached and the Danes appeal to the EC


Council, if we try to enforce our protection? Nobody knows at present. The House and the industry should be given an answer to those questions.
Unhappily, such is the lamentable story of our relations with the EC that damage done to our fishing industry is not the only threat that faces us. We have not received information yet this week about the United Kingdom contribution to the EC budget. Will the Leader of the House confirm the rumour that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will make a statement tomorrow? So far, the Chancellor has told us nothing about what he did and what happened at the EC Council of Finance Ministers last week. The only information that we have received is from the press. In this budget story, the Prime Minister's supposedly triumphant deal over the budget contribution was thrown into confusion by the reckless behaviour of that strange body that calls itself the European Parliament, although it is neither European nor a parliament. That happened 10 days ago when the European Parliament refused to approve the settlement that had been reached by the Council of Ministers. Our budget prospects have been disrupted to the tune of at least £500 million by this development, although we do not know how far it has affected our budget, when or by how much. It is another, equally lamentable, story.
Before we joined the EC we were told that our budget contribution would be trivial and that we need not worry. When, after joining, it proved to be about £500 million and, not long afterwards, £1,000 million, we were then told—I skip part of the story—that by a brilliant stroke the present Prime Minister had solved the problem in Dublin in May 1980. Far from being a lasting agreement, it transpired that it would continue only for two years. Last October, the story was that we could be sure that the agreement had been settled for one year. Even that has been upset on the spur of the moment by that curious body, the Assembly in Strasbourg.

Mr. David Stoddart: I hope that my right hon. Friend will also refer to the fact that this itinerant, insolent and polyglot Assembly has said that if the refund is agreed, it wishes to supervise the spending of the money. Does he not agree that that would be a disgraceful intrusion into the sovereignty of this Parliament, which hitherto has been the only body able and willing—it is part of our job—to supervise the spending of the Executive?

Mr. Jay: That is quite true and I shall come to that point later. The Chancellor must enlighten us about that matter. He must also make it clear whether it is now true that we shall get back none of the contribution, as was promised, made in the European Community's calendar year that ended on 31 December 1981. All that we are now promised—it is only a promise and none of the previous promises have been kept—is that we may receive it not later than 31 March. That is not good enough. I do not know why we should believe such promises from Brussels or Strasbourg when they have never been kept in the past.
Does the EC own the £460 million that is owed to Britain and that is alleged in the newspapers to be on deposit in the Bank of England, to remain there until 31 March? Will interest be charged on it, as we were told at one stage, between 31 December and 31 March? To whom will the interest accrue—the EC Commission or the British Exchequer?

Mr. Skinner: It is to pay for Roy Jenkins' mansion.

Mr. Jay: I hope that we shall at least have a clear statement of the details of the present position not later than tomorrow. If this lamentable story is not to go from bad to worse, it is time that the Chancellor said plainly that unless the agreement reached last October is carried out, the United Kingdom will no longer continue to pay its contribution to the EEC budget.

Mr. Nicholas Baker: I shall not follow the remarks of the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay). Although he may be wrong about the European Community, he has been absolutely consistent about it and I pay tribute to him for that.
I am grateful for the opportunity to draw to the attention of the House a matter that has not been debated in this Session but I believe requires ventilation before we adjourn. There is public interest in the personal ownership of heritage assets such as buildings, works of art and other assets that are of such outstanding quality as to be properly considered part of the nation's heritage.
I shall mention one or two ways in which we are neglecting the national heritage, put forward some suggestions about what we should do and say something about the National Trust. To defend my principle, may I say that I see nothing intrinsically wrong with assets being in the hands of individuals. That is a widely held view about ordinary assets, such as a house, but an asset can be part of the national heritage even if it is personally owned and is less likely to be seen by many members of the public. Few, if any, owners of such assets are reluctant to show their stately homes or paintings, if they are lucky enough to own them, to those who are genuinely interested in seeing them.
However, personal ownership benefits the public much more than that. Most assets come alive and are at their best when they are cared for. If that is true of a piece of furniture, it is even more true of an estate upon which an entire community is dependent. The large landowner is more likely to look after the interests of many of those who are concerned with the land, whether as tenant farmers, employees, tourists or neighbours, than those who are not. I would add one other factor about land holding in rural areas. The landlord should be resident. Absentee landlords have done more damage to the landlord-tenant system in rural areas as well as in cities than any other single factor.
The typical resident private owner of heritage assets is a dedicated person for whom the protection and maintenance of those assets is a vocation, especially if the assets have been inherited. They endure discomfort, work long hours and have their lives dominated by the assets to an extent that few of us appreciate. Society generally gets a good deal from them.
To those who are opposed to assets being in private hands because of their possible misuse, I would say that it is much easier to curtail abuses of property or position by private individuals by means of penalties, taxation and Acts of Parliament than it is to control a public monopoly or Government Department. To those who are opposed to assets being in private hands because they do not like the idea of some people owning more than others, I say that where assets and responsibility go hand in hand, there is little resentment by members of the public. It is envy, not ownership, that is one of the seven deadly sins.
How should we promote the private ownership of heritage assets, especially where those assets axe in


danger, as I believe they are today? We should do so principally by reducing the capital tax burden, which is the continuing means of the State's attack on the individual who owns important assets. I pay tribute to the previous Labour Government for introducing measures to alleviate the crippling burden of taxation on grade 1 houses and estates. The right hon. Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Barnett) led that initiative. Such measures were directly in the public interest.
Nevertheless, estates and their assets are being eaten away fast by capital gains and capital transfer taxes. Never as economically productive as ordinary investments, they are quickly rendered less so by the process of capital taxation. Owners are being squeezed out and their assets are under threat. I hope that my right hon. Friend will draw this matter to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
The National Trust has done wonderful work and performs a unique function in maintaining and conserving some of our heritage assets. I am a life member and regular visitor of some of its properties. After the State and the Crown, it is now the third largest landowner in the United Kingdom. It owns 450,000 acres and has covenants over another 75,000 acres. I do not wish to detract from its achievements in conserving houses which would otherwise have disappeared, in preserving rural coastlines and in its continuing advisory work, in which it excels.
Nevertheless, as one might expect of an organisation with a council of 52 members, the National Trust is cumbersome, committee-ridden and slow to take decisions. It took exactly one year to make up its mind to accept the bequest of Kingston Lacey, which is in my constituency. It is a house with an estate of more than 15,000 acres. It is undoubtedly valuable and self-supporting.
National Trust houses are beginning to suffer from uniformity of treatment. That is to be expected from any national organisation that tends to reduce the individual characteristics of a property. It is uncertain how far its organisation and, therefore, approach should be national or regional. To increase income from its houses, shops are now regularly installed. Neither the shops nor their merchandise have anything to do with the intrinsic attributes of an historic house, the people whose home it once was or the people who worked there.
It is time for a radical change of direction for the National Trust. I should like it to pursue a vigorous policy of sale, disposal, leasing or other alienation of property, where possible, and within the limits imposed on it. If necessary, it should have the help of the House to that end. I should like it to do more, subject to safeguards, to put heritage assets into private hands. The leasing of property by the National Trust should be extended. As a last resort, I would favour the acquisition by the National Trust of historic houses, such as Kingston Lacey, but how much better would that and other houses fare in private hands.
Britain's heritage assets lie under continuing threat. The best way to meet that threat is to encourage the most effective means of conserving our priceless heritage through private ownership. The House should not adjourn before addressing itself to this important topic.

Mr. Roland Moyle: During our debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill on 29 July, my hon. Friends the Members for Battersea, South (Mr. Dubs) and for Crewe (Mrs. Dunwoody) and I raised with the Government the anxieties that were beginning to be felt in London about the non-application of the Acheson report. Since then, that anxiety has increased not only among Labour Members of Parliament but among others, including the Greater London Council. The House should not adjourn without the Government, before the Christmas Recess, making a much clearer statement about their attitude to the report.
I do not wish to detain the House by describing the Acheson report, but I shall recapitulate a little. The Acheson study group was set up in January 1980 and it reported in May 1981. By the standards of such organisations, that is pretty brisk work. The report is vital to London, as it deals with health care, especially primary health care, in inner city areas. That is important in London because the inner city problems in London are larger and more difficult than in any other part of the country.
There are more poor people, more elderly people, more people who live on their own, more foreigners, more recent immigrants, more single parent families and a greater lack of amenities in inner city London than elsewhere. Moreover, there is a tradition in London of relying for much health treatment on out-patient departments at the large teaching hospitals. Those factors do not make for the organisation of good general practice and primary health care in inner city London.
The result is an excessive number of elderly general practitioners, many single-handed GPs and grossly inadequate surgeries, some of which I have seen, and which are appalling. GPs often concentrate not on providing a national health service for their patients but on lucrative private practice in the adjacent areas of the West End and central London.
For housing reasons and because people are not keen to live in inner city areas, there is difficulty in recruiting health visitors, district nurses, midwives and social workers. I do not wish to elaborate further. The speeches of my hon. Friends the Members for Battersea, South and Crewe and of the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown) on 29 July provide all the elaboration that is necessary. There was some unease about the Government's attitude to the Acheson report last summer. That unease has increased since then.
The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security replied to the Consolidated Fund Bill debate. He was not clear. He would not say whether the Government accepted the report in principle, but he said that it would not be possible for the Government to act on all 150 recommendations in the Acheson report and on the related Harding report. Nevertheless, he said that
the Government accept the broad thrust of the Acheson report and the need to examine in detail its recommendations".
As the group was set up under the auspices of the Government, we should expect no less and I give the Government no marks for that undertaking.
The Under-Secretary issued a deathless clarion call to action:
I hope that it will be possible for my hon. Friend to be in a position before much longer, on the basis of the continuing


consultations with professional interests … to make positive and specific proposals".—[Official Report, 29 July 1982; Vol. 28, c. 1370–71.]
No doubt those consultations will be lengthy if the Under-Secretary has his way.
Five months have elapsed since we were given that promise and all that we have had from the other Under-Secretary of State is a reiteration of an undertaking given in the Queen's Speech debate:
Among other areas likely to benefit from the additional money
for the National Health Service
is primary health care in inner cities … I shall make statements in due course."—[official Report, 8 November 1982; Vol 31, c. 331.]
The course is becoming increasingly due with every month that passes. That answer is not a reference to the implementation of the Acheson report. We want to know what inner city money, if any, is to be spent on the application of the Acheson report and its recommendations. Will it be spent on primary health care and the purposes and policies recommended by the Acheson report? Money spent on health services in inner city areas may be wasted unless it is spent in accordance with a carefully thought out plan.
The vague, general remarks of the Under-Secretary of State lead us to fear that, by delay and evasion, the Government are signalling their intention to dodge the application of the Acheson report and to shelve its recommendations. If that suspicion is substantiated in this debate, London Labour Members and the GLC will have to step up pressure on the Government to make sure that the report is applied.
I do not like issuing threats, but there has been a delay of well over 18 months since the Acheson report was published and there is still no sign of action by the Secretary of State for Social Services and his Ministers. I hope that we shall have a clear statement of the Government's policy before we rise for the Christmas Recess.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: We should not adjourn until the House has had an opportunity to consider the consequences of its rejection on Wednesday of the Government's draft immigration rules.
As one of the hon. Members responsible for the rejection of those rules, I am glad to see my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House on the Government Front Bench, because he has voted against the party line as often as anyone.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): More often.

Mr. Stanbrook: I start with an advantage, because my record as an independent Back Bencher is not nearly as good as that of my right hon. Friend.
I do not want to go over the arguments that were set out in Wednesday's debate, but it is time for us to consider what should be the appropriate response to the decision by the House.
In many ways, the Government are the authors of their own misfortune. The House passed the British Nationality Act 1981 which established in letter and in spirit provisions concerning equality of the sexes and the rights of different classes of British citizens. The Government at that time faced the prospect that the existing immigration

rules might fall foul of the European Commission of Human Rights under the terms of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The Government made two mistakes. First, they repeated the previous error of regarding immigration as a branch of the law which is fit for the establishment of absolute rights. I believe that it ought to be considered against the background of the public interest and, therefore, be more susceptible to discretion rather than absolute rights secured by statute.
The Government's second mistake was to underrate the importance of a manifesto obligation. Not all of us regard individual commitments in a manifesto as sacrosanct and many of us have seen Governments not living up to such commitments. For example, Labour Governments have been condemned for not carrying out policies passed by the Labour Party conference.
A manifesto is in the nature of a prospectus—a series of expressions of intent or promises to the electorate about what will be done if the party is returned to power. There is an obligation on a Government to carry out such promises or at least to give an explanation if they are unable to do so. A promise was made in the Conservative manifesto to reverse a concession allowed to foreign husbands and fiancés by the Labour Government in 1974. That promise was honoured a year after the 1979 general election by the passage of immigration rules that ended the concession.
However, two years later, with the minimum of explanation or even discussion of the difficulties in the light of the approaching decision by the European Commission and the British Nationality Act, the Government sought to reverse that decision.
We ought to look for a treatment of immigration that meets the criteria of equality of rights between the sexes and between British citizens. We can do that by providing that all decisions on the admission of foreign spouses—not only husbands—and fiancés and fiancées should be by ministerial discretion only. In other words, we should remove the absolute right of a foreign wife to enter this country for settlement and place it, along with matters affecting the entry rights of husbands, into the realm of ministerial discretion.
It may seem shocking that an absolute right should be replaced by ministerial discretion, but there would be many advantages in such a course. There would be equality and the opportunity to consider every case on its merits. Reservations about the admission of a husband or wife could be taken into account. It has been suggested that there should be a quota for the admission of spouses, and that, too, could be taken into consideration.
A replacement of the existing provisions of the immigration rules by one which subjected all applications from spouses and fiancés to ministerial discretion, governed by appropriate rules for the guidance of immigration officers and those who issue certificates of entry, would satisfy not only the spirit of the British Nationality Act 1981 in its desire that we should treat both sexes equally but the requirements of the European convention.
There would be one disadvantage. What is now supposed to be an absolute right for foreign wives to enter for settlement would be taken away. To those who are attached to the notion of legislating for abstract ideals, however, that would be a small loss compared with the establishment of equality between the sexes.
Foreign wives have no statutory right in any event. On this subject, Ministers usually quote section 1(5) of the Immigration Act 1971, which merely states that nothing in the Act shall affect the existing position of such people. We have not legislated for an absolute right of foreign wives to enter Britain for settlement. Therefore, it would be perfectly feasible—and, I believe, politically possible—to make the case of every foreigner wishing to enter this country a matter for discretion, judgment being made upon the merits of each case. That would also reconcile all those who believe that the existing state of the immigration rules is wrong and unsatisfactory.

Mr. Thomas Cox: I want to refer to two matters, both of which ought to be discussed by the House. First, I have often spoken in the House about the problem of prostitution in my area. Unfortunately, far from improving, the problem has worsened over the years. The latest figures clearly show this. Last year there were 320 convictions for prostitution. Before the end of November this year, there had been 470 convictions. Last year there were 14 convictions for either keeping brothels or living on immoral earnings, but by the end of November this year there had been 22 convictions.
However, these figures give no idea of the conditions and the atmosphere that prostitution cause in an area. Prostitutes come in from many different parts of London or the United Kingdom, and then the kerb-crawlers come into the area and are a real menace. They will accost any woman they see, irrespective of age. Any woman seen walking the streets is regarded by them as a possible pick-up. The offence that kerb-crawlers cause to women means nothing to them.
Last Wednesday I attended a meeting at which the problem was discussed at great length with two police officers. A woman of well over 70 told us that she is regularly accosted and she regards it as a great offence. When she speaks to the motorists, they take no notice and are more than likely to abuse her further. The things that happen to women in my area because motorists come in seeking the services of prostitutes are unbelievable.
Every Minister in the Home Office is aware of the problem in my area. The Ministers have all been told of it on countless occasions. I have been told by them repeatedly that they are very concerned and realise the problem, but they say that they cannot do anything about it. They say that legislation would be difficult. I have to tell the Leader of the House that that is used as an excuse to do absolutely nothing. How would he feel if in the area where he lives his wife was accosted and abused day in and day out, as many women who live in my area are by kerb-crawlers? When shall we start to see some meaningful action from the Government to control the problem? Apart from my area, it is a problem in many other parts of Britain.
Great concern exists—and it is shared by the police—at the lack of appropriate action by magistrates when people charged with prostitution, or with living on immoral earnings, appear before the local courts. After such people have been found guilty, often the penalty that is imposed is meaningless. The Home Secretary should make it known to magistrates that they must use their powers in an attempt to stop the problem becoming even worse than

it has been in recent years. I ask the Leader of the House to tell us when we shall see some action from the Government by the introduction of legislation that will get to grips with this problem.
I should now like to speak briefly about the Cyprus problem. It is eight years since Turkey invaded Cyprus. Despite all the talk over the years, and the fact that the British Government are one of the guarantor powers for the island of Cyprus, very little progress has been made towards a united Cyprus. We are told repeatedly of the inter-communal talks. Undoubtedly, there was a time when people looked to the inter-communal talks to give some hope of a united Cyprus. Unfortunately, very few people now see any chance of a united Cyprus emerging from the talks.
One of the great problems is that of the missing people. Despite the fact that the names, addresses and ages of those concerned have been supplied, and despite repeated representations to the Turkish Administration, no answers have been given as to the whereabouts of the missing people. In February next year there will be presidential elections in Cyprus. I hope that very shortly after those elections we shall have a statement from the Government as to their future policy towards Cyprus. As I have said, eight years have now passed, and great patience has been shown by the Cypriot people, but that patience is now fast running out.
When I speak on Cyprus, I always say that I am concerned just as much for Greek Cypriots as for Turkish Cypriots, because there will be a future for them only if we adopt that sort of approach to their problems. For many years many young people came here from Cyprus to study. The Leader of the House will be aware of the very close links, going back many years, which exist between Cyprus and the United Kingdom.
There is no university in Cyprus. Its young people have to depend on the United Kingdom for their university and higher education studies. Many services in Cyprus—professional, scientific, technical and legal—are based on the English system.
The enormous increase in student fees in recent years has done enormous damage to Cyprus. In 1975, there were 1,069 first-year students from Cyprus in this country. In 1982, the number had dropped to 269. There can be no doubt about the long-term loss suffered by the young people of Cyprus and also the loss of good will that will be suffered by this country. I ask the Leader of the House to make this point forcefully to the Secretary of State for Education and Science.
Many hon. Members make full use of the limited time available to discuss Cyprus. It is not a party issue. It is, however, a considerable time since our last debate. Only a few months ago, this country was concerned about the freedom of the people of the Falkland Islands to choose the system under which they want to live. The same applies to the Cypriots, Greek or Turkish, who live on the island. Freedom is of great concern to them. I hope that, following the presidential elections, the British Government will say where they stand on the freedom of Cyprus and how those who live in Cyprus wish to lead their lives in the years to come.

Mr. Tim Eggar: I associate myself completely with the remarks of the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox). I have been deeply concerned about


the damage done by the issue of overseas' students fees. I also look forward, once the presidential elections are out of the way, to an initiative by the United Kingdom Government on the Cyprus split.
Like many hon. Members, I was concerned to read in the newspapers about the apparently racist attitude portrayed in the essays written by police cadets at the Hendon cadet training school. Last Friday, a lecturer at the college came to my advice centre. Mr. Martin Bholan describes himself as Left-wing. He is West Indian and is also the NATFHE representative at Hendon college. He has been abused personally and over the telephone by people who have resented strongly his refusal to support Mr. John Fernandez, the lecturer who chose to reveal the contents of the essays written by the cadet trainees. What Mr. Bholan told me on Friday and what I have since learned from a number of telephone calls shows up, I believe, Mr. Fernandez, the Brent education committee and the media in an extremely bad light.
I should like to give the House some background to the case. It is complicated. Hendon cadet training college, in addition to its police staff, has about 30 academic staff. The job of the academic staff is primarily to teach O and A-level subjects. The academic staff is recruited directly to work at Hendon, although technically, mainly for historical reasons, its members are part of Kilburn polytechnic, which is effectively controlled by Brent council.
About a year ago, Brent, under newly elected councillors, refused to continue funding Hendon college. Now it gives virtually no money towards running the academic side of Hendon. Barnet council is the only council that has a direct funding obligation. Before the incident to which I have referred, discussions were taking place between Brent and Barnet about responsibility for control of the academic staff at Hendon.
At the end of last year and in the light of the Scarman report, the police decided that they wished to introduce as a matter of urgency multi-cultural studies. The course was designed to be specifically anti-racist. The urgency of the introduction of the course is shown by the fact that it was started in January rather than September, normally the beginning of the academic year. A special in-service training course was laid on for the academic and police staffs in order to equip them to teach the new multi-cultural course.
It was agreed when the course was started in January that it would be a pilot scheme. The police went out of their way to try to assist the academic staff, which was short on the number of hours that it should have been teaching, by involving its members in teaching phase 3 cadets. These cadets are effectively undergoing on-the-job training, some based at Hendon. Historically and contractually, the academic staff have never had any teaching obligation towards them.
During July 1982, six months after the course had started, discussions took place between the police and the academic staff. The police made it clear that in future they would have sole charge of the phase 3 part of the course, although phases 1 and 2 for cadets in the early part of their training would continue to be taught as previously with some amendments made in the light of experience.
It is against this general background that the remarks that I now intend to make have to be seen. In mid-November, a Channel 4 programme called "Eastern Eye" featured Mr. John Fernandez, a lecturer at the college,

giving extracts from various essays which had been written by 17-year-old police cadets. Some of the essays were clearly racist in tone. Since then, there appears to have been some dispute about the context in which the essays were written. It has been suggested that some cadets wrote them as a joke. It has also been suggested that the cadets deliberately set out to annoy lecturers whom they believed had been giving them a biased view.
Whatever the context in which the remarks were made, the whole House, I believe, will deplore the fact that the cadets were making known racist views within their course. No hon. Member, I believe, would seek to condone what those essays stated. However, just as the views of the cadets cannot be condoned, nor can Mr. Fernandez's action be condoned. Mr. Fernandez was, after all, a lecturer in charge of a multi-cultural studies course designed deliberately to try to increase racial awareness and to reduce racial tensions and any racial attitudes that might be held by police cadets. He deliberately kept those essays for about nine months before releasing them to the press and to television.
Mr. Fernandez released the essays in a clear breach of the trust that exists between the cadets and the lecturers concerned, knowing perfectly well that the course had been designed to try to encourage the cadets to be open in their views on racism, and that the whole purpose of the course was to try to reduce their racist views if they had them. He released them in the full knowledge that it would damage the trust between cadets and academic staff, and in the full knowledge—I believe deliberately —that it would increase the tension between ethnic minorities and the police.
Mr. Fernandez had two lines of defence to this charge. His first and main defence was that he tried to discuss the contents of the essays with other staff, and in particular with other senior staff at the college. I am assured that at no time did Mr. Fernandez seek to make representations to the academic director—in other words, his direct boss—and at no time did he seek to make representations to the commandant of the Hendon college or to the police commander in charge of training in the Metropolitan area. While this defence cannot be completely denied because there are five or 10 staff who have not said whether Mr. Fernandez discussed the matter with them, the chances are, to say the least, that it is suspect.
Mr. Fernandez's second and subsidiary defence was that he did this in defence of "academic freedom." That is an extraordinary defence to render when the person who renders it has himself betrayed the essential trust that must exist between the taught and the teacher.
The House will agree that, in the light of all this, it is not surprising that Mr. Fernandez was asked to cease teaching at the Hendon cadet school and that he was refused access to the site. Unfortunately, the story does not end there. The college was immediately picketed by lecturers from the Kilburn polytechnic, none of whom had ever taught at Hendon. The picket was ignored by virtually all NATFHE staff at Hendon, who completely deplored the action taken by Mr. Frenandez.
The matter was taken a bit further when Brent council threatened to withdraw all NATFHE employees at Hendon unless two conditions were met: first, that Mr. Fernandez should be reinstated immediately without any preconditions; and, second, that the academic staff should retain control of the phase 3 multi-cultural studies course. The second condition is obviously absurd as the staff never had


any historical or contractual obligation to teach the course. On the first condition—the reinstatement of Mr. Fernandez without preconditions—I am informed by the union representative that, even if he were reinstated, two-thirds of the staff at Hendon have said that in no circumstances would they work with him.

Mr. Michael McGuire: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I plead with you to remind the hon. Member for Enfield, North (Mr. Eggar) that this is a debate with a time limit and there are several hon. Members who have sat in the Chamber for a long time waiting to speak. I remind the hon. Member, through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that his speech has already exceeded the longest speech so far by three minutes.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): I proposed to remind the hon. Member for Enfield, North (Mr. Eggar) that the debate lasts for only three hours and that I understand that the Opposition Front-Bench speaker wishes to speak at 7.40 pm. I hope that hon. Members will bear that in mind when framing their speeches as in this important debate the Chair would like to call as many hon. Members as possible.

Mr. Eggar: I understand the point, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, because of the deliberate misrepresentation of this case that has occurred, I felt that the full facts should be put before the House and on record and I did not feel able to abbreviate my remarks any more than I have.
It is now just before Christmas, and about 30 people are not sure whether they will be able to return to their jobs when the academic term starts again in the middle of January. Some of them have been employed for 20 years at Hendon. They are in this position because of the unprofessional conduct of one lecturer, this conduct having been supported and condoned by a Left-wing Labour council.
My constituent, Mr. Martin Bholan, and the other lecturers at Hendon have asked me to take up the matter directly with the Home Secretary because they do not believe that they will receive any justice from Brent council. Their only wish is to continue to teach at Hendon. I therefore have some specific requests to make of the Home Secretary before the House adjourns. I have already written to my right hon. Friend asking for a meeting.
I hope that before Christmas the Home Secretary will be able to state clearly that there can be no question of Mr. Fernandez being reinstated, that the Home Office will take whatever action is necessary to safeguard the jobs and career prospects of lecturers at Hendon and that he will assure them that they can return to teach at the beginning of the new academic terms. Lastly, and by no means least importantly, I hope that the Home Secretary and the commandant of the police college, despite the serious setback that has taken place due to Mr. Fernandez's action with regard to the multi-cultural studies, will reinforce their commitment to courses of this kind that are designed to encourage racial awareness among cadets at the college.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: I hope to keep within the guidelines on time to which you have drawn our attention, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The subject that I wish to raise is the current dispute about manning levels in the Department of Health and Social Security. [Interruption.] I think that there is some other meeting going on here, but I know that it is the fashion nowadays not to listen to the speech of any hon. Member unless it is essential. One has to put up with these things. This is a matter of great concern which needs to have some comment from a Minister before we go into recess.
This is my maiden speech in a Christmas Adjournment debate. I have never felt that these debates served any great purpose, so perhaps I should explain why I think that this one will. I do not have the advantage of a weekly local paper. That is one reason why I have never felt there was an overwhelming need for me to make a speech.
I have the greatest respect for the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House. I am sure that will do him no harm, because I doubt whether the Prime Minister will read what I say in this debate. I know that the Leader of the House has a sense of humour and is knowledgeable, but I doubt whether any man is knowledgeable enough to reply satisfactorily to the range of subjects that has been raised so far.
I hope that the importance of the subject that I raise will warrant some kind of reply from the Leader of the House. I am sure that he has knowledge of the current dispute which originated in Birmingham and Oxford. The matter is far removed from Scotland, but it has become more serious because the two major unions involved decided two weeks ago to escalate the dispute unless it was resolved in the near future. They had conferences on 7 and 9 December. I am speculating, because I have no inside knowledge, but my guess is that their soundings of their members' views will produce a strong body of support for their colleagues in the Birmingham and Oxford areas.
One very disturbing feature is the turmoil in the Department as a whole. The numbers of local offices have been reduced from 1,200 to about 500. There have been reductions in staff. At the same time, there have been enormous increases in claims to benefit, especially supplementary benefit. In August 1979, there were just over 3 million supplementary benefit claimants. The figure is now more than 4 million. That increase, coupled with administrative changes and the reduction in staff numbers resulting from Rayner and other aspects of Government policy, has created general discontent in the Department.
What appears to be a local dispute is so significant that the Government must pay attention to it. If they do not, they may have real trouble on their hands. I make no threat. I merely suggest that the Government must be aware of the general discontent among the Department's staff, linked with the enormous changes that there have been in the past two or three years in the range of benefits available. In addition, there has been an enormous increase in the number of pressure groups outside. This is a fascinating subject, which I have not time to develop, but obviously the number of pressure groups creates added tension among the staff who have to deal with the public in this extremely sensitive area.
There is also genuine concern among many staff of the Department about the need to preserve jobs at a time when we have more than 4 million people unemployed. For all those reasons, there is a mixture of motives associated with what, on the face of it, started as a purely local dispute.
I represent an area which recent census figures suggest has the third highest level of male unemployment in the country. What is more, in that respect, of the 10 worst constituencies in the country, five are in Glasgow. There is nothing of which to be proud or ashamed about that. However, I can tell the Leader of the House that 93 per cent. of my constituents are council tenants and that 33 per cent. of households have some overcrowding. It may give the right hon. Gentleman an idea of the so-called deprivation there when I say that 80 per cent. of households have no car. In addition, a staggering 10 per cent. of young people under the age of 16 are members of one-parent families—more than anywhere else in the country—and they are only one disadvantaged group in a community which will be hit hard if the dispute escalates.
There is a good office in my constituency. Like most hon. Members, I find that the service from its management and staff is first-class when I raise individual cases with them. I make no complaint about the pressure that I should experience if there were a nation-wide strike in the Department.
The possibility is that there could be a serious strike starting on 17 January—the very day that this Christmas Recess is to end. I beg the Leader of the House to treat this matter seriously. I know that when he says that he will draw it to the attention of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, he will do that. I am not being cynical when I say that. However, I beg him to read some of the warning signs, which are not confined to Birmingham and Oxford but have wide-ranging repercussions. I hope that the Government machine will take some action during the recess to give me cause to believe that my constituents will not be further disadvantaged in addition to the serious disadvantages that they experience already.

Several hon. Members: rose——

Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Since there are only 35 minutes remaining before the Leader of the House is due to reply, if hon. Members confine themselves each to five minutes, presumably all those wishing to intervene will be able to do so.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is a very helpful suggestion.

7.6 pm Mr. Robert Adley: As my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn and Hatfield (Mr. Murphy) and I are the only remaining Government supporters who wish to contribute to the debate, my mathematics is not good enough to work out how we should divide the time to avoid being out-talked by Opposition Members.
Unlike the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Brown), this is not my maiden speech in a Christmas Adjournment debate, although I have not spoken in such a debate for some time. However, when one returns to a debate of this kind after a few years, one is struck by the regularity with which hon. Members on both sides of the House make their individual points. Our friends would say that we were persistent. Our critics would say that we were obsessive. On that basis, I hope that the House will allow me to spend a few minutes discussing a subject in which I have some interest. I refer to the future of the railways.
In my view it would be quite wrong for the House to rise until hon. Members knew a little more about the

Serpell report. Twice in the past three weeks during questions on the Business Statement, I have drawn the attention of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to the urgency of the report being produced and made available not just to the Department of Transport and to the Secretary of State but to the general public. I urge again that, when the report is in the hands of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, he publishes it immediately regardless of its contents. No good will come to the Government or anyone else if the report is hidden away in the Department and massaged before it is produced for us all to scrutinise.
I make the point again—out of persistence and not obsession—that British Railways, unlike other nationalised industries such as British Leyland or British Steel, will be run by no one else if we in this House do not fund it. Others can make cars and steel, but no other nation will run our railways. I am still not entirely satisfied that every member of the Cabinet appreciates the difference between a nationalised manufacturing industry and a nationalised industry which is part of the nation's transport infrastructure. For 150 years we in the House have made and continue to make substantial demands upon the railways. If the same demands were made of road transport, they would be considered intolerable, especially our demands in respect of safety. It really is about time that we compared our railways on an equal basis with other forms of transport and gave them a fair crack of the whip. I hope that the Serpell report will do just that.
The second matter to which I refer is rather more contentious. It concerns the Government's reaction to the current CND campaign. Many of my right hon. and hon. Friends—I am probably as guilty as any of them—sometimes feel that it is rude to raise their voices and impolite to repeat themselves. In the era of modern communications if one does not constantly repeat oneself there is a danger of finding that one's case has gone by default. The CND cannot be accused of lack of adequate propaganda. It has managed to equate the word "peace" with its activities and give the impression, which it constantly seeks to do, that those who are not with it are somehow in favour of war. This is clever, but ridiculous.
I should like the Government to recognise that a more apt and accurate description of the people who wander around the countryside demonstrating would be, not "peace campaigners" but "appeasement campaigners". If the type of marches that we have seen recently at Greenham Common were attempted in Poland, Afghanistan or the Soviet Union we know well that they would not get far. One has only to ask whether such demonstrations could take place in those countries to know the answer.
One cannot help but wonder whether, had the Afghans possessed a nuclear deterrent, the Soviet Union would have invaded in the way that it did. CND propaganda is clever, insidious and persistent. It has to be matched in every way by those who do not share its view. The policy of a nuclear-free zone is about as sensible as advocating a rabies-free zone. It should be laughed out of court. I am glad that both the Dorset county council and the Christchurch council have rejected the proposal out of hand.

Mr. Bob Cryer: We have a rabies-free zone. It is Government policy.

Mr. Adley: They have seen it as nothing more than a propaganda ploy. Words like "peace" and "freedom" look different from the comfort of Berkshire, Hampshire or Dorset than they do to those poor souls in Moscow or Warsaw who must look at countries such as ours and wonder what sort of lunatics we are breeding who fail to appreciate the real and supreme advantages in the freedom of the human spirit and the individual, which we take for granted and which they do not enjoy.
Peace is not a gift; it is a prize, for which many of my constituents fought between 1939 and 1945. They believe, as do I, that peace is not achieved by marches and chanting but by a willingness to defend ourselves against ruthless dictatorships.
I urge the Government to do everything they can to combat the insidious propaganda campaign that is being promoted by the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. That campaign, with its Aldermaston marches, achieved absolutely nothing. I understand that unilateral disarmament is now the policy of the Labour Party. Therefore, unilateral disarmament is now a party political issue. I hope that the Conservative Party will take note of that, and that the BBC will look carefully at its charter so that when it gives willing publicity to the constant propaganda churned out by CND it will recognise that it is also promoting Labour Party policy.
The "ban party" and the "Benn party" are now one and the same. It is the duty of all Conservative Members to ensure that people fully understand the implications of that.

Mr. David Alton: I wish that I could follow the hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) down that railway track. It was Einstein, not a member of the Labour Party, who once said that if there were a third world war fought with nuclear weapons, the fourth world war would be fought with bows and arrows. I hope that the Leader of the House will take note of the implications of nuclear war and arrange a debate so that the House may take a decision about the deployment of cruise missiles and think again about the Trident strategy. I hope that he will consider also the leading article in The Guardian this morning which talked about the need for a nuclear freeze.
I want to discuss the future of the city of Liverpool, because the Secretary of State for the Environment, who was created Minister for Merseyside in the wake of the riots that took place, is reported as being in line for promotion to Secretary of State for Defence. One year later the House should consider whether the initiatives that he took in Liverpool have been the success that he claims. It beats me how he has the nerve to pronounce his year in Liverpool a success. His initiatives seem to have been a monumental irrelevance and a grand illusion.
The city of Liverpool has seen 10 thousand trees planted in the past 12 months. During the same period a further 10,000 jobs have been lost and over the past 10 years more than 89,000 jobs have gone. In the past 12 months, while the Secretary of State has presided from his fancy new offices in the centre of Liverpool, factories in my constituency—Barker and Dobson, which makes Everton toffees, and Lyons Maid—have closed.
The Secretary of State earmarked about £20 million for a garden centre on the edge of Toxteth. That project has been using labour mainly from Manchester and parts of

Lancashire. Those areas have unemployment problems, but, while that labour has been imported, we have seen people sacked and vacancies remain unfilled in local authority employment because of the massive reductions in the rate support grant.
Anyone would think that it was someone other than the Secretary of State who, during the past three and a half years, has reduced the Liverpool rate support grant settlement by more than £63 million. Last week's announcement means that there will be further reductions in the rate support grant to the city. That will result in either further reductions in employment and services or rate increases of about 20 per cent. The implications for small businesses, many of which are on the brink of bankruptcy, will be all too clear to those hon. Members who have studied such matters. While the Government have been spending money on garden centres and trees, we have seen not just reductions in our rate support grant settlements, but this year a massive £7 million reduction in our housing investment programme.
I should like to bring to the attention of the House the case of a constituent of mine, Mr. John Carroll, who is 76 years old. Since 30 June this year he and his wife have been living in a property which has been condemned as unfit for human habitation by the council's health inspectors. Despite that, Mr. Carroll has been sleeping on the floor and his wife has been sleeping on the couch since last June because the bedroom cannot be used. The council says that it cannot rehouse them because it has no suitable accommodation.
There is a dearth of sheltered accommodation, granny flats and properties for the elderly in the city of Liverpool. There is inadequate housing all over the city. Money is still allocated for garden centres and trees, but not for the alleviation of basic problems. Many people say, "If one cannot afford blankets on the bed, one does not have the piano French polished". The Secretary of State and the Leader of the House should consider those common-sense views.
The English house conditions survey, which was published last week, points out that there are major housing problems in the city of Liverpool as in other parts of the country. Although 400,000 building workers languish on the dole and nearly 500,000 homes have no inside sanitation, hot water or bathrooms, we spend money on irrelevancies such as garden centres, trees and tatting up the environment. Those matters should be on a list of priorities, but not necessarily at the top.
One crime is now committed in the city of Liverpool every four minutes. One home is broken into every 20 minutes. Yet the Government have the audacity to say that there is no clear link between unemployment and crime. In 1979, 40 per cent. of people appearing before the courts were unemployed. The greater the proportion of an age group which is unemployed, the more likely such people are to turn to crime. For every additional thousand people unemployed, there are 14 extra people taken into prison, and the average daily prison population rises by three. There are about 4,500 additional people in prison than when the Government came to power. A recent study shows that for every thousand additional young people who are unemployed, 23 additional young males are sent to prison.
A recent report shows that Liverpool prison, built in 1854 to accommodate 900 inmates, now has a population of 1,433. I need not elaborate on the conditions that those people must endure.
The area health authority has been told to reduce its budget by £5·5 million. The polytechnic has been told to reduce the number of courses, and it is believed that it will axe 38. Because of the new Transport Bill, there is a danger that 2,000 metropolitan passenger transport executive employees will be made redundant. In addition, there could be a 40 per cent. fares increase and a reduction in services.
These are important issues for the people of Liverpool. I hope that, before we adjourn for Christmas, the House will have a chance to consider them further.

Mr. Christopher Murphy: I associate myself with the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) about the wrong-headedness of CND and the irrelevance of a nuclear-free zone. He was right to ask the Government for a full response to the claims of those two campaigns.
I also urge the Government, before the House rises for the Christmas Recess, to announce their intentions on immigration. As someone who, regrettably, found it impossible to support the Government both in the White Paper debate and in the debate on the new rules, I believe it is essential for recognition to be given to the need to keep to the manifesto commitment, which the public understandably supported, to end the Labour Government's concessions.
My abstention over the White Paper was necessary, because, although supporting controls, I believed that the new proposals did not go far enough. My abstention in the debate on the rules was necessary, because I could not condone joining the Labour Party and the SDP-Liberal alliance in their opposition, as their stance was in complete contrast to my own stance and that of many of my hon. Friends. Those parties seem prepared to condone an increase in immigration. We wish to echo the manifesto commitment:
Firm immigration control for the future is essential".
I cannot regard the Government's proposed immigration rules as being in the best interests of my constituency. A relaxation of the immigration restrictions would mean more people coming into the country and, therefore, even more competition for jobs. Welwyn and Hatfield is fortunate in having relatively low unemployment, but, even so, 6 per cent. of the working population in the constituency is out of work.
During the general election, I, too, was committed to firm controls on immigration. Such controls were introduced by the Government with my support. Those controls would now be weakened. Increased immigration will also increase the burden on taxpayers to provide even more benefits for additional jobless people.
Since I became a Member of Parliament, my contacts with local immigrant leaders have led me to believe that they fully understand the need for strict controls that help both local people and immigrants already settled here. It cannot be right now to move towards new controls that will not be firm enough. However, it must be right to recognise the anxieties of British people about continuing levels of immigration.
I also urge the Government to announce a return to the controls, originally agreed by the House, which the country wants to see.

Mr. Bob Cryer: I shall be as brief as I can, but I know that many hon. Members are highly inconvenienced by the new Standing Order which, contrary to previous practice, curtails this debate. The previous practice was far superior and allowed flexibility. I therefore hope that an alteration will be introduced in the near future.
Before the House adjourns for the recess, I ask for a statement and a debate on cruise missiles. Statements have appeared in the newspapers this weekend that cruise will be introduced earlier than expected to thwart the massive and rising peace campaign that is opposed to cruise and other nuclear weapons.
The presence of United States nuclear bases in the United Kingdom has never been authorised in this House. It is claimed that the number of such bases is about 50, but, in fact, there are more than 100. In answer to a parliamentary question, I was told
No central record of such material"—
that is, the documents authorising these bases—
is held, and the research which would have to be undertaken to assemble one would entail disproportionate effort and costs."—[Official Report, 10 December 1980; Vol. 995, c. 680.]
That cannot be true. The expenditure of the Ministry of Defence is about £13 billion, and it spends £6 million alone on PR material. I simply cannot accept that it does not maintain a central record of authorisation for American bases in the United Kingdom.
Such authorisation is vague to say the least, and is certainly unsatisfactory. It stems from an agreement in 1951 between Attlee and Truman. The House was not sitting because of a general election, and consequently that agreement was never scrutinised. It was claimed that the use by United States forces of bases in the United Kingdom would depend on the circumstances prevailing at the time. That is totally meaningless, but it was accepted by Churchill. It does not mean a thing and, what is more, does not give this or any other Government the right of veto over the use of cruise missiles.
Incredible though it may seem, the list of treaties included an
Exchange of Notes … relating to the Sale of Tobacco by the United States Government and the Construction of Housing and/or Community Facilities by the United Kingdom Government.
That treaty is dated June 1956. In other words, the Government invoke an agreement to buy tobacco as part of the authorisation to the American Government to use nuclear weapons on our soil.
I emphasise my support, and that of my hon. Friends, for the courageous women of Greenham Common who have established the vanguard of opposition to the installation of cruise missiles in the United Kingdom. They stand for a majority of our people—[Hon. MEMBERS: "Rubbish".]—who no longer believe those who say "We stand for multilateral disarmament", especially Conservative Members. While such people wring their hands and shed crocodile tears, the number or nuclear weapons has increased year after year. If the theory of the deterrent is so credible, why—as both sides have a capacity to knock out major cities—has that sword of


Damocles not remained stationary? Why has the nuclear fire power of each side increased year after year, led by America on each occasion?
If we allow cruise missiles into the United Kingdom, there will be another escalation in the nuclear arms race. Even the Daily Mail—a paper that is competing for the title of Pravda to the Conservative Party—admitted last week that there are no dual keys and that it is concerned about the lack of an effective right of veto by the British Government over the use of cruise missiles.

Mr. Albert McQuarrie: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Cryer: I have very little time, and the hon. Gentleman has only just come into the Chamber.
In recent months we have seen how other decisions of the United States Government have been unacceptable to the United Kingdom Government. From recent experience, it is clear that in some circumstances the United States Government could threaten or invoke the use of nuclear weapons without the consent and support of the United Kingdom Government. The United Kingdom Government would have no right of veto over the use of such weapons, and we could be sucked into a nuclear confrontation without our consent.
There are other dangers in respect of cruise missiles. For example, they are cheap. That means there is an even greater possibility of proliferation. Moreover, verification is not possible at present, and even the Prime Minister talks about the need for verification in reducing the number of nuclear weapons.
In my view, therefore, the women of Greenham Common are taking the correct action in drawing attention massively to this potential escalation. They have my support, and I believe that they have the support of millions of people in this country in wishing to halt the nuclear arms race and in supporting the United Nations in its efforts to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons. We should certainly debate this matter before the House rises.

Mr. Michael McGuire: I shall speak for only a few minutes of the time that I could take, because, like me, my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) has been waiting patiently to speak.
The issue that I want to raise concerns the new town of Skelmersdale. It has, I think, the highest male unemployment on the mainland of Great Britain—over 38 per cent. Just a few weeks ago, a company in Skelmersdale new town called Polythene Drums applied for regional aid to expand further in a town which has terrible unemployment. One can imagine how disappointed it was when it was told that the scheme that it had put forward did not qualify for grant aid.
The company took the opportunity to go to the Welsh Development Agency. That agency has a few more pounds available in North Wales from the steel fund of the EC, and it grant-aided the company, within about six weeks of its applying. This is the absurdity that I want to bring to the attention of the House, and I hope that the Leader of the House will pass it on to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry.
I am discussing the situation in a town where, as I said, male unemployment is over 38 per cent. The company was

bankrupt, and two men took it over in January 1976. In April, 1976, they started the company again from scratch with 40 workers. They have more than quadrupled that number, and now employ nearly 170. They have increased the unit of production tenfold, from under 1 million units to over 10 million units. Naturally, they have increased the cash value more than 10 times. The company has demonstrated that it is a good company and one that needs help. The area receives the highest grant aid in the United Kingdom, because it is a special development area. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. Alton) talked about Liverpool, where Merseyside, like Skelmersdale, has the highest grant aid. However, the company was refused aid because the Ministry said that it was not a profitable company—a company which had quadrupled employment and increased production tenfold. So it went to North Wales, and it was snapped up immediately. That is the absurdity of the Government's regional aid programme.
I do not want to be partisan. After all, many of the right hon. Gentleman's colleagues have been talking about the manifesto and its relationship to immigration, saying how the Tory Government have broken the promises that they made when they were in Opposition. I want to remind the right hon. Gentleman of something that in my opinion is far more important, and that is the promise to rejuvenate the economy. My people in Skelmersdale remember the posters that said that the Labour Government were not working, when about 1½ million people were on the dole. My people live in a town where there is terrible male unemployment. They see the contradictions in the Government's policy. They see that the Government's regional aid programme cannot help them. This is the issue that I want to bring to the attention of the House.
Before I close—I have promised my hon. Friend five minutes of my allocation of 10 minutes—I want to tell the Government how they can help. In Skelmersdale, we very much need a new hospital. The grand design of the new town will not be complete until the hospital is built. The Government can also assist by helping a company called Hughes International, which wants to bring 1,000 jobs to the new town, and by relaxing the export credits guarantee scheme. If the Government will relax the scheme so that this company, which has orders with the State Governments of Nigeria, can be helped through the ECGD, 1,000 jobs will come to Skelmersdale, and people who are facing the bleakest Christmas of their lives will at least have some hope that the Government recognise their responsibilities to a new town where there is crippling unemployment. The new year may then appear a little brighter.

Mr. David Winnick: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. McGuire), who shortened his remarks so that I might intervene as the last Back-Bench speaker.

Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend walked into the Chamber after me.

Mr. Winnick: I do not know what my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is complaining about. I trust that I have as much right to speak as he has. I hope that he will bear that in mind. I am the last person to be intimidated by him or anyone else.

Mr. Skinner: All I am saying is that while this debate was in progress my hon. Friend was at the Tribune meeting, at which my right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin) was discussing how to handle the proxy votes, while I was sitting here listening to the opening speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley).

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Order. We must stick to the motion.

Mr. Winnick: I was at a Tribune meeting attacking the position taken by my right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin), so I do not know what my hon. Friend is complaining about.
I had wanted to raise one or two matters, but in view of the time, I shall mention only one, which I believe is most important. I hope that we shall have a statement before the House rises on the illegal activities being carried out by the South African embassy in London. An official, Joseph Klue, who was working in the military section of that embassy left Britain after the Foreign Office complained about his activities. Last week there was a court case in which a person who was described as a South African agent was sent to prison for four years after pleading guilty to conspiracy to burgle the offices of three black nationalist organisations in London. The South African embassy seems to be heavily involved in what can only be described as a "dirty tricks" operation. There can be little doubt that such activities have been going on for some time.
Clearly the House must be concerned, because no embassy should carry on such activities in this country. The fact that this has come to light is all the more reason why I believe that we should have a statement from the Foreign Secretary or the Home Secretary as quickly as possible.
Abroad, of course, the South African intelligence agencies are undoubtedly involved in various intelligence and terrorist work. Earlier this year, an outstanding person opposed to apartheid, Ruth First, was murdered. It is understandable that there should be much anxiety among opponents of the South African regime living in this country that they may be the subject of attacks of various kinds as described in court last week, and carried out directly or indirectly by the South African embassy.
It is bad enough to have an apartheid regime which bases itself on racial discrimination, and which has been condemned by the overwhelming majority of countries. However, it is totally intolerable that that country's embassy in London should carry out activities which are clearly against the law. The South African ambassador should be called to the Foreign Office and told clearly that Britain will not continue to tolerate such activities. For too long the South African embassy in London has been virtually a law unto itself. The court case and sending Mr. Klue out of the country, should be only the first steps in ensuring that the South African embassy understands that, unlike the country that it represents, this is a quite different country where law and order exist and where the process of law is well established. The South African ambassador should be notified of that as soon as possible and in the clearest terms. In the meantime, I trust that there will be a statement from a Minister at the Dispatch Box on this subject.

Mr. Charles R. Morris: This has been the first Adjournment debate initiated under the new, revised parliamentary procedures. Despite the criticisms, the new procedures have got off to an encouraging start. I have listened to virtually every speech that has been made, and, with one notable exception, they have been commendably brief.
It is right that as the nation looks forward to Christmas—the season of good will and hope—hon. Members should seek to reflect the anxieties and despair of their constituents. I was moved, and shared the anxiety expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) about the impending closure of the Michelin factory in his constituency. Quite rightly, the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) gave us the Northern Ireland dimension of that closure. Four thousand jobs are likely to go in Stoke-on-Trent and Northern Ireland as a result of the impending closures of factories owned by that major international company—one third of its work force.
I am mindful of the fact that the debate is taking place a comparatively short time after the House resumed in October. During that period of a little over two months unemployment in Britain has increased by another 36,000, according to the seasonally adjusted unemployment figures for the period from the end of September to the beginning of December. The Government's standing in the Gallup and MORI polls has collapsed by a half. There is a relationship between those two statistics because there is a growing lack of confidence in the Government's ability to deal with the major problem of unemployment, which is now touching the lives of so many people in Britain. Even in the city of Manchester which I represent I was staggered to find that there are 870 unemployed for every unskilled vacancy on the register at the local jobcentres. That is a measure of the human problem which is affecting and afflicting so many communities, not only in Britain but in Northern Ireland as well. All that the Government do is sit back, Micawber-like, waiting for something to turn up. The nation expects the Government to address their mind to the problem.
I have touched on the despair that exists among so many people in Britain. I could understand the anxiety expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) about the Community fishing policy. He was joined by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) in demanding a statement to clear up Denmark's position. What a ludicrous position the House is in. It is now 20 December and the Community's fishing policy will be put into effect on 1 January yet we do not know the final position.
I was intrigued to listen to the hon. Member of Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) who, unfortunately, is not now present in the Chamber. He brought an almost philosophical dimension to our discussions. He analysed the Government's defeat on the draft immigration rules and was at great pains to explain how the Government got it wrong. He declared that the Government had not lived up to their manifesto commitments in that regard. That is not the only manifesto commitment that the Government have not lived up to.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moyle) was right to focus attention on the problem


that was dealt with in the Acheson report, which deals with primary health care in inner city areas. That should command the time and attention of the House.
The major constitutional point was made by the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison) when he raised a fascinating point about the Presiding Officer in the Northern Ireland Assembly. I share his view that that Assembly was created by this Parliament and I hope that his point will not be shuffled off, but will receive a considered response.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) drew attention to two problems that afflict his constituency—prostitution and his Cypriot constituents' anxiety about Britain's attitude to the Cyprus question. It is interesting that Britain—a signatory Power in the Cyprus issue—has never honoured its obligations in that regard.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Brown) exhibited what I would describe as a healthy scepticism towards debates such as this. As one listens to the many contributions one's sympathy occasionally goes out to the Leader of the House who is obliged to answer the multiplicity of issues that are raised. However, I hope that we shall not be given off-the-cuff replies. If they cannot be avoided I hope that he will draw the attention of his ministerial colleagues to the important points that have been made. In particular, I hope that either he or his ministerial colleagues will pay serious attention to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) about the deployment of cruise missiles in Britain and his formidable questioning of the authorisation of United States sites in Britain.
Finally, I have only one minute left to touch on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. McGuire) about the awful problem of unemployment in Skelmersdale, which he said had a male unemployment rate of 38 per cent. and which he thought to be the highest on the mainland. While I do not want to involve myself in a competition in misery, I can tell him where there is an even higher level of unemployment. The unemployment rate in Moss Side, Manchester, is 44 per cent., yet Manchester is not even an assisted area. It has no attractions for incoming industries.
I hope that I have said sufficient to show my concern about some of the valid and lucid points made by my hon. Friend.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): I thank the right hon. Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. Morris) for giving me a few moments of his time. There have been several generous observations about the new form of debate. The fact that 20 hon. Members have spoken during the allotted time shows that, on the whole, there is still room for a wide canvass of views. Nevertheless, the task of replying to the debate becomes that much more difficult if one is operating against a fixed deadline. I shall try to deal with the points that have been raised and plough through my notes to that end. However, if I am obliged to hit the buffers before I have touched on all 20 contributions, I hope that the Serpell report will put me right.
I shall begin with those hon. Members who raised essentially local matters, which are, nevertheless, of great significance. The debate was opened by the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley), who kindly told me that he would be unable to await the concluding speeches. He commented on the problems in north Staffordshire, particularly in manufacturing industry. He illustrated those difficulties by the recently announced closure of the Michelin Tyre Company. Of course the House instantly sympathises with anyone in that situation. Indeed, the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) explained that his constituents faced similar problems. However, their reaction to the problem was slightly different, and I suspect that that reflects the different political circumstances.
The right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South went through the reasons for the closure of the factory. Indeed, I would expect him to include the Government's policies. However, the House would not do justice to those difficulties if it failed to consider that major technological changes are taking place in the tyre industry, with the advance of radial tyres. Those changes are having a considerable impact on the capacity needed to supply the market. The right hon. Gentleman's reaction was to call for import controls and a realistic exchange rate, which meant one significantly lower than the present rate. I imagine that it would be established by Government authorities, because, if it was left to the market, it would simply stand at its present rate.
For all that remedy's immediate attractions—I must admit that I am one of the last to be attracted by it—many of our manufacturing industries are importers. They import components to enable them to compete round the world as manufacturers of finished products. If we manipulate the exchange rate and impose import controls we shall do considerable damage to our industrial base. I accept that the difficulties facing the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South are very real, but his remedies would not necessarily be to the lasting advantage of manufacturing industry.
The hon. Member for Antrim, South inquired whether any help had been sought in connection with the recently announced closure. I am told that no help was sought by Michelin. I was asked whether the Government could persuade Michelin to extend its activities at Ballymena. I understand that Michelin has affirmed its commitment to the present factory at Ballymena and that any further discussions involving the Government would go through the industry development board.
The hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) spoke about the serious social issue of prostitution in his constituency and asked whether there was any likelihood of early legislation. I am sure that he would be the first to admit that it would be a contentious and significant Bill. There was no provision for it in the Gracious Speech and, given the present state of our parliamentary programme, it is extremely unlikely that a Bill will be introduced in this Session. However, I note his anxiety and his wish that I should draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to his concern that magistrates have been remarkably relaxed in their sentencing policy in his area.
My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, North (Mr. Eggar) put a most complex situation to the House, concerning the Hendon cadet training college. I naturally sympathise with my hon. Friend, because he was concerned to put his case in the most balanced and fair


way. In a timed debate such as this, that can give rise to anxiety. However, the House is indebted to him for the way in which he put his case, and I shall ensure that it is referred to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. Alton) gave a litany of the serious problems affecting Liverpool. I have noted them and will draw them to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment since he is, in a sense, the lead Minister on that whole range of difficulties. If one does not live in Liverpool, it may be easy to take a more relaxed view of such problems. After all, we all think that we have major social and economic difficulties in our constituencies. Nevertheless, one of Liverpool's problems in commending itself to outside investors is that it must persuade prospective employers that it does not have quite such a forbidding roll-call of problems as that read out this afternoon. But the day that hon. Members cease to be able to read out such roll-calls will be the day that this House, as we know it, will cease to exist.
The hon. Member for Ince (Mr. McGuire) mentioned the difficulties in Skelmersdale. I was immediately struck by the story of overbidding between the Welsh Development Agency and bodies in England. In attracting overseas investment, there has been some overlap between various public agencies. That makes it difficult to persuade other countries that we have adopted a serious and coordinated approach to the problem. However, I have taken note of those points and will ensure that they are communicated to the relevant Ministers.
My hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison) kindly gave me notice that he would raise issues connected with the Northern Ireland Act 1982. Even more generously, he sent me a copy of the Act. Perhaps it was because I was so well equipped that I studied his points, and particularly his concern that the Presiding Officer—the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder)—has been acting ultra vires. I shall at once convey that view to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who will be most anxious to attend to that problem. I hope that my hon. Friend will think it not a discourtesy, but the very reverse, that I have not sought to deal with such a delicate issue myself.
My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Montgomery) referred to the fact that citizens of the Irish Republic can vote in United Kingdom elections. He will know that a Select Committee is currently taking evidence on that issue. I am sure that it will be happy to receive his evidence. In the meantime, I would monstrously mislead him if I suggested that there was a likelihood of legislation on this matter during the balance of this Session of Parliament.
The hon. Gentleman also inquired about standing charges. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy attaches great importance to this matter. I shall convey to him the anxiety which is felt on both sides of the House that there should be an early determination of what can be done about standing charges.
My hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Sir P. Hawkins) kindly gave a re-run, as it were, of his previous speech on the Adjournment motion. He drew attention to the importance of the farming ladder and the need to achieve a much better balance in the countryside. Farmers' sons who are not likely to inherit a tenancy

should be able to obtain tenancies and those outside agriculture who wish to make a career in farming should have the opportunity to break into the profession.
I have tremendous sympathy with that general aspiration. It would be wholly to the detriment of agriculture if it became atrophied so that it reflected merely those who are lucky enough to be in farming at present and their heirs and successors. My hon. Fiend is right to say that, with regard to let land, probably the most important thing is to obtain early and sympathetic reaction from the Treasury. I shall pass on that message to my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Baker) also had a message for my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer about heritage assets. I have a feeling that his message is rather less expensive in Treasury terms than that which my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West wished to have conveyed. I shall convey both messages with an equal sense of commitment.
The right hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moyle) drew attention to the Acheson report. I am sure that he did so in the light of the debate on 6 December when some announcements were made about further spending of about £3 million on primary health care in inner cities. The right hon. Gentleman clearly wishes to have a statement on the Acheson report and for the House to be informed in the near future. I had a speaking note prepared by the Department of Health and Social Security, but I think it fell a little short of the clarion call for which the right hon. Gentleman called. I will, if I may, refer his speech to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. I realise that there is much concern on both sides of the House about health care in inner cities.
My hon. Friends the Members for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) and for Welwyn and Hatfield (Mr. Murphy) referred to the immigration rules which are a matter of topicality and some delicacy just now. I think I had better say that I was extremely interested in the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington. He felt that the basis for the immigration of spouses would be better if it were founded on ministerial discretion rather than what has more recently been proposed. As the conciliatory services of the 1922 Committee and the Whips' Office will be working on these matters over the next few days, 1 feel that any comments of mine should be at best neutral.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Brown) wisely alerted us to the dangers inherent in the present dispute in the Department of Health and Social Security. He fears that it may escalate into a strike that will be called on 17 January. We would quickly realise that a strike of that character goes much wider than merely those employed and working within the Department of Health and Social Security. It would have serious consequences for the community generally. I shall, of course, pass on the hon. Gentleman's comments to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. Meanwhile, I am sure the House is anxious that every action should be taken to avoid the dispute developing in the way that the hon. Gentleman fears.

Mr. Charles R. Morris: When the Leader of the House is discussing this issue with his ministerial colleagues, will he emphasise that this potential industrial dispute will touch the lives of those in greatest need?

Mr. Biffen: I put in a rather more convoluted form what the right hon. Gentleman now puts very simply.
I turn to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) in which he asked for further comments upon the Serpell report. He may recollect that he asked me about it during business questions last week, when I promised to write to him. That letter will be in the post tomorrow morning. I hope that that will meet the issues that he has raised.
I now take up some of the wider issues raised that touch upon more or less international affairs, within which I include the European Community. The hon. Member for Tooting again made a powerful and eloquent plea on behalf of the Cypriot community and of policies designed to secure reunification of the island. As the hon. Gentleman said, he has been making more or less the same speech for some years and I have the feeling that it has been confronted by a series of emollient but unsatisfactory answers. I do not think that I can go much beyond what I said when he raised the issue with me previously. Of course, I shall refer it to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. The House and the nation must have a clear idea of what are the limitations of Britain's effective power. Our ability to influence these affairs may be rather less than sometimes we hope.
The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) referred to the South African embassy. He raised a serious issue and I shall ensure that details of it are passed to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.

Mr. Winnick: rose——

Mr. Biffen: I shall not give way. I do not wish to block the hon. Gentleman but I can see the end in sight.
The right hon. Members for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) and Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) directed their remarks to the European Community. My mind goes back to the early 1960s. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland was a dedicated, dignified and enthusiastic supporter of Community membership while the right hon. Member for Battersea, North was an inveterate opponent of membership. They now seem to be crowding on to the common ground of being bad Europeans, which means being stout nationalists. I understand the concern over the fisheries dispute. The Council of Ministers will be meeting on 21 December. As I said during business questions last week, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has always been punctilious in reporting to the House.

Mr. Jay: rose——

Mr. Biffen: No. I am being quite forthcoming. I can assure the right hon. Member for Battersea, North that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer intends to make a statement on the budget rebate tomorrow. I suspect that that drama will continue to unfold for some time yet. It is one on which the House will be brought up to date.
The hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) talked about cruise bases and the entire defence issue that is therein contained.

Mr. Jay: rose——

Mr. Biffen: No. I shall not give way.
This involves the issues of whether Britain should belong to an Alliance that has a nuclear component, what

part we should play in it if we are prepared so to belong and all the other issues that are drawn inevitably into such a debate. We had a debate on 15 December on the NATO Council. Of course, I do not believe for one moment that that can resolve the cruise issue and all the other issues, such as our nuclear stance and our relationship with other members of NATO. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the debates that take place in the Chamber are never short of opportunities for raising such matters. There is plenty of well-structured time for defence debates, during which these matters can be argued, as they must be, as we proceed through the Session to the final choices that lie with a general election.

Question put:

The House divided: Ayes 93, Noes 24.

Division No. 37]
[8.09 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
MacGregor, John


Atkins, Robert(Preston N)
McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
McQuarrie, Albert


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Marlow, Antony


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Marten, Rt Hon Neil


Blackburn, John
Mather, Carol


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Mawby, Ray


Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Brinton, Tim
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Brooke, Hon Peter
Morgan, Geraint


Brown, Michael(Brigg &amp; Sc'n)
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Buchanan-Smith, Rt. Hon. A.
Murphy, Christopher


Buck, Antony
Myles, David


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Neubert, Michael


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Osborn, John


Colvin, Michael
Page, Richard (SW Herts)


Cope, John
Pawsey, James


Costain, Sir Albert
Proctor, K. Harvey


Dickens, Geoffrey
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Renton, Tim


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Eggar, Tim
Rifkind, Malcolm


Eyre, Reginald
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Fairgrieve, Sir Russell
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Faith, Mrs Sheila
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Speed, Keith


Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles
Speller, Tony


Fookes, Miss Janet
Stainton, Keith


Fox, Marcus
Stanbrook, Ivor


Goodhew, Sir Victor
Steel, Rt Hon David


Goodlad, Alastair
Stradling Thomas, J.


Greenway, Harry
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Thompson, Donald


Hamilton, Hon A.
Trippier, David


Hawkins, Sir Paul
Waddington, David


Hawksley, Warren
Waller, Gary


Heddle, John
Wells, Bowen


Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)
Wheeler, John


Howells, Geraint
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Wolfson, Mark


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael



Kaberry, Sir Donald
Tellers for the Ayes:


Lang, Ian
Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones and


Lee, John
Mr. John Selwyn-Gummer.


Lester, Jim (Beeston)



NOES


Allaun, Frank
Dalyell, Tam


Alton, David
Dixon, Donald


Atkinson, N. (H'gey,)
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)


Bennett, Andrew (St'kp't N)
George, Bruce


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Hardy, Peter


Canavan, Dennis
Hoyle, Douglas


Cox, T. (W'dsw'th, Toot'g)
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Craigen, J. M. (G'gow, M'hill)
Kerr, Russell






McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Wigley, Dafydd


Molyneaux, James
Winnick, David


Powell, Rt Hon J.E. (S Down)



Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Tellers for the Noes:


Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
Mr. Dennis Skinner and


Wainwright, R. (Colne V)
Mr. Bob Cryer.

Question accordingly agreed to.

That this House at its rising on Thursday do adjourn till Monday 17th January.

Later—

Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The widespread dissatisfaction about the operation of the new Standing Order for the recess Adjournment debate should be placed on record. It curtails our debate unnecessarily. I hope that at the earliest opportunity we shall revert to the previous method whereby the debate was opened by——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is a matter not for the Chair but for other people.

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That this House do meet on Thursday at half-past Nine o'clock, that no Questions be taken after half-past Ten o'clock, and that at half-past Three o'clock Mr. Speaker do adjourn the House without putting any Question.— [Mr. Archie Hamilton.]

Orders of the Day — Agricultural Marketing Bill

Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens).

Clause 2

FUNCTIONS OF FOOD FROM BRITAIN

Mr. Stanley Newens: I beg to move, in page 2, line 27, at end insert—
(2A) Food from Britain shall become responsible for the Agency Agreement between the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Land Settlement Association Ltd.
The Bill has been welcomed and supported by hon. Members on both sides of the House as being much needed to improve and develop the marketing of British agricultural and food produce at home and abroad. It has, therefore, come as something of a blow to discover that at the very time when the Bill is going through the House the Minister has decided on action that can only severely damage or wreck the marketing system that has been operated by the Land Settlement Association with great success for many years. That is why I am moving the amendment.
The Land Settlement Association was established before the Second World War to enable people without much capital to establish themselves as smallholders and small business men, producing food and produce for the domestic market. To provide for the successful disposal of such produce at a profit, the LSA established a completely integrated marketing and production system. It has functioned through a tenancy agreement with each tenant whereby the tenant crops his holding according to an agreed cropping plan that is determined by consultation and then markets his produce through the association. On behalf of the Minister through an agency agreement that dates back to 1947, the association has maintained a marketing organisation to serve tenants' needs.
As I understand it, the Minister's responsibility arises from the terms of the Agriculture Acts 1947 and 1970 and it has hitherto been exercised on his behalf by the Land Settlement Association. On 1 December this year, the Minister decided to give notice that he proposed to terminate the agency agreement, to end the scheme and to enable tenants to purchase their holdings if they se wished.
Whatever one may think of the effects of the disposal of smallholdings, thereby cutting off access to the first rung of the ladder in farming to future entrants to the industry who do not have large reserves of capital, the effects on existing tenants are those about which I am especially worried this evening.
Many tenants, learning that I was worried about the Minister's decision, wrote to me, and I have a large bundle of letters that express considerable anxiety about the decision. Tenants believe that their businesses will be seriously damaged and could even be ruined by the abrupt way in which it has been decided to end the scheme. Some tenants will face bankruptcy unless they are given more time. A letter from Potton reads:


Following the decision that all growers in future must obtain finance from the banks instead of the LSA the recent withdrawal by the Minister of his guarantee has placed many growers including myself in an impossible position.
Another letter from the same area expresses a similar view:
This is now putting many tenants in an impossible situation".
I could quote many other letters expressing similar views.
It is clear that the consultation that occurred before the decision to wind up the scheme was taken was inadequate—if the desultory communications between the Minister and a few tenants can be regarded as consultation. There has been no consultation worthy of the name about the future of the marketing organisation, and many tenants face serious problems.
If tenants are to survive they must establish new marketing arrangements by 1 April 1983. I have no doubt that the assistance of the Central Council for Agricultural and Horticultural Co-operation or its successor will be forthcoming to enable that to be done, but the Government are apparently asking for all the assets of the existing marketing scheme, including grading equipment, lorries and tractors, to be disposed of by 31 March. That means that the new marketing organisations will scarcely be formed in time to bid for that equipment which would be essential for its operations.
In addition, the new organisation can bid for the equipment only if it has the necessary capital. The problem is exacerbated by the fact that the Minister's guarantee of credit from Barclays Bank is apparently to be discontinued. Therefore, what guarantee is there that the bank will advance further credit or, in some cases, refrain from calling in existing loans? Indeed, it appears that officials of the Ministry are virtually telling the bank to call in loans.
I have here the report of a meeting that took place between Ministry officials and the LSA on Friday 3 December. This says:
It will then be up to Barclays Bank to serve Notice on the Grower and ourselves to regain their loan from the proceeds of any such sale. If this does not cover the outstanding loan, which it may not because of the very severe reduction in glass values, that is Barclays Bank's problem.
It is impossible to construe the Government's action as assisting growers or treating them reasonably on the basis of this statement.
The Minister knows that horticulture has had a difficult time in recent years, and that many of the growers have incurred considerable debts and could face liquidity problems. If the new co-operatives or other marketing organisations experience difficulties in raising credit, the growers may well not be able to form any scheme to replace what exists. If that is the result of the Minister's decision, it will deal a heavy blow to the existing marketing arrangements for British produce just when we are discussing a Bill designed to improve that marketing.
8.30 pm
About 500 growers on 10 estates are involved, and the LSA is the largest producer of salad crops in Britain. If the LSA marketing arrangement is not adequately replaced, the market for those products will be taken up by somebody else. Growers in the Netherlands and other European countries would be only too glad to take advantage of such an opportunity.
The Bill speaks of national marketing, but in this instance a successful national marketing scheme is being smashed up and not replaced by any adequate alternative. I am aware that many of the tenants on LSA estates have expressed some dissatisfaction with the marketing arrangements with which they have been familiar for some time. In many cases they have also wished to have the opportunity to purchase their holdings. The majority of them, however, are certainly not in favour of the rushed manner in which the change is being carried through. Even at this late stage, further time must be provided or some transitional arrangements made.
Many of the growers would not have been dissatisfied with the existing marketing arrangement if they had had more say in it. They have objected not so much to the marketing arrangement itself as to the fact that they felt that there they were not consulted sufficiently about the way it functioned, and had conditions imposed upon them which they found irksome in certain respects. The majority of tenants do not view what is now being done as a preferable alternative in the short term. Even the attraction of buying a holding at 50 per cent. of its valuation is not very brilliant to those tenants who are unable to pay up what they owe forthwith, as the Minister has made it plain that, before buying, a grower must clear any outstanding debts to him.
The amendment would transfer responsibility for the agency agreement between the Minister and the LSA to Food from Britain and allow any desirable changes to be made at a more considered pace. It would prevent the Minister from his obligations to a group of small business men who surely deserve something better from a Government who continually laud what they are supposed to have done for small business men. Here is a clear example of the damage that can be inflicted on people in this category by the doctrinaire policies that the Government sometimes embrace.
The amendment offers a means of preventing the infliction of serious harm upon the LSA tenants. If the Minister believes that the amendment is out of place and wishes to reject it, it is up to him to suggest some alternative way of safeguarding the interests of the majority of LSA tenants which are gravely threatened by the decision so rapidly to bring the scheme to an end.
The amendment should be seriously considered by all who are genuinely concerned about the LSA tenants, and that includes hon. Members on both sides of the House. Above all, the growers need more time. At this stage, speaking in the House this evening, we still have the opportunity to prevent irreparable damage from being done to this group of people.
Horticulture has experienced very difficult problems in recent years. It is clear that the growers are deeply concerned, the NFU is deeply concerned, and the cooperative movement, with which I am associated, is very deeply concerned. In those circumstances, I hope that the Minister will see his way clear either to accepting the amendment or to providing an alternative method of assisting this group of people.

Sir Peter Mills: I welcome the opportunity to take part briefly in the debate, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens) on raising the matter in the House in the way that he has. One can understand his concern and the concern of many


smallholders and their families over what is happening, although I think that their fears are not as well-founded as they think and as the hon. Member thinks.
The hon. Member says that the Land Settlement Association has been a great success. He should qualify that statement because it has not really been such a great financial success. It has provided the opportunity for young people to get into horticulture but many serious debts have occurred, and that has to be taken into account.
Times have changed—they always do—and being able to purchase one's holding for 50 per cent. of cost is not a bad deal. It should be encouraged and people should go ahead with it, even though there may be some difficulties. Everyone in this House knows that I am a great believer in agricultural co-operation. There is no question but that the efforts of agricultural co-operatives have been very worthy, although, as I have said, times have changed. Let no one in this House underestimate the role of agricultural co-operation, with all that that means.
My mind is conditioned by my early days in agriculture, and I have always been grateful for what agricultural co-operation has done for me. Therefore, I can understand the concern of the small farmers. Some of us were once small farmers. I started a long time ago with 26 acres.
I am sure that the Minister is sensitive about the need for adequate time to be given to sort out the problem. Obviously, the Government want to bring matters to a head, but I believe that the Minister will take note that time is needed to sort out the problem. If everything cannot be worked out by the specified date, I hope that the Minister will be flexible. I believe that Food from Britain will be able to deal adequately with the proposed change. I am sure that it will be able to give advice to the growers as they move forward into a new era of marketing and of standing on their own feet.

Mr. Newens: From his experience in agriculture, does the hon. Gentleman agree that the growers have a case when they say that insufficient time has been allowed to them to make the transition?

Sir Peter Mills: I am not too sure about that. That is why I hope that the Minister, when the time comes, will be flexible. We wait with interest to hear what he has to say about that. I believe that Food from Britain can deal with the change. I have every confidence in the new organisation and those who are running it. I believe that they will help the growers.
The debate has been important to show the people in these holdings that they are not forgotten. I have great confidence that the Minister will be able to respond to the point that has been made. I am certain that my right hon. Friend will be flexible. As a former small farmer, I wish small farmers all possible luck in the future. I hope that they take advantage of the chance to purchase their own smallholding for 50 per cent. of the value. It is a real bargain.

Mr. Ioan Evans: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens) on attempting to obtain certain assurances from the Minister in response to the concern expressed by many tenants of the Land Settlement Association. My hon. Friend has referred to the co-operative movement and to a number of tenants who have written to him expressing their deep anxiety. I should like to put on record a letter that I have

received from the National Farmers Union expressing deep anxiety. The NFU states that it is contacting hon. Members in haste to urge them
to seek assurances that the Government will extend its present time-table so as to avoid hardship for the LSA tenants. The NFU though not opposed to the principles of the changes affecting LSA tenants, is very concerned at the apparent intention to implement these changes within a time scale which is bound to cause the tenants grave financial hardship and result in the severe disruption of their commercial activity.
I do not know whether my hon. Friend intends to persist with the amendment. If, however, the Bill will result in severe disruption and affect commercial activity, there is need at this stage for assurances to be given by the Minister. The letter goes on:
Because of the adverse trading conditions of the past several seasons for the range of horticultural crops produced on LSA estates, tenants are on average in worse financial circumstances at the moment than would have been normal a few years ago.
Although one hears a great deal about the prosperity of agriculture, these tenants have suffered in recent years. The letter continues:
The average LSA tenant has long term borrowing associated with the establishment/development of his business (particularly investment in glasshouses), which he must service from income. In addition he has short term borrowing which, though normally seasonal, has tended to accumulate during the past two years. All this borrowing has been arranged through the LSA organisation. It would be totally unreasonable to expect tenants to discharge these short term debts in the next two or three months, especially as it is a time of the year when there is little or no revenue from the sale of produce".
If the climatic conditions are to continue as they have started this winter, one appreciates that point. The letter adds:
Similarly if the LSA is to cease its central marketing activities, tenants must be given a reasonable period to organise effective alternative machinery or they will be at the mercy of a highly volatile and competitive market. Most tenants have no experience of marketing their produce.
That is a telling contribution by the National Farmers Union. Opposition Members agree with the intentions of the Bill, but there are those on the Opposition Benches who have grave misgivings about the European common agricultural policy. A recent article in The Sunday Times shows that the policy will not endure and that it will have to change.
If there is a failing in British agriculture, it is that there has not been enough co-operation. A comparison with the marketing of Danish bacon reveals the need for greater cooperation in the marketing of our produce. The amendment shows the difficulties in which tenants of the Land Settlement Association will be placed.
It is incumbent upon the Government to give the House an assurance, because it may be that the Bill will go through without amendment. My hon. Friend has quoted from a number of letters, and I could also quote some letters to the Minister. There are people in the LSA who are not looking forward to this Christmas. Let us put their minds at rest and let them enjoy this Christmas by giving assurances that they have not yet had.

Mr. Anthony Nelson: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans) who always speaks with force on whatever subject he is presenting to the House. It is particularly appropriate that a Welshman should contribute to the debate because many of the original tenants of the LSAs were Welshmen, men who were made redundant in the mines after the war and


were resettled. In my constituency in the LSAs of Siddlesham and Batchmere there are still a few Welsh names.
I had not intended to speak, but the amendment gives us a welcome opportunity to share some of the concern that the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens) expressed about timing, although I shall take a different and rather more welcoming attitude towards the thrust of what the Government are proposing to do. I take this opportunity of welcoming the decision to allow tenants to buy their holdings and to take on responsibility for their marketing. In my constituency this has been broadly welcomed, although many of my tenants are also concerned about the detailed aspects of financing and timing.

Mr. Newens: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the conditions that apply on the particular estate with which he is concerned are not necessarily the same as those that apply on the other nine estates, and that some of the feelings that he has found among his tenants exist in much greater measure elsewhere?

Mr. Nelson: I am prepared to concede that, and I was going on to say it, because it is the success of many of the tenants of LSAs in my constituency that has led not only to their enthusiasm about the effective privatisation of the LSAs but also to their feeling that they would rather go it alone than become part of some national private cooperative.
Although the tenants at Siddlesham are considering the possibility of forming a company in which they would have a share that would take over the assets and the marketing, they nevertheless wish at this stage to keep open the possibility that they will acquire their own holdings and become private businessmen rather than part of the private national co-operative. I can understand the reason why tenants elsewhere have a rather different view, but the hon. Gentleman will understand that I have to represent the interests of my constituents and their future and interests as they see them.
However, there may be some logistical problems in complying with the timetable requirement of the end of March. While I would not demand that the date be put forward, I hope that my hon. Friend can give an assurance tonight that a degree of flexibility will be shown. I think my hon. Friend would be the first to admit that it is in the interest of neither the Government nor the tenants for the small tenants in the horticulture sector to have their future undermined in such a way as will lessen the market value of the holdings that the Government are hoping to sell. We would not expect the Government to be unreasonable and I am confident that my hon. Friend will be able to show flexibility.
There are a number of associated problems, particularly those of the right to buy for the staff of the LSAs, although this is not the appropriate occasion on which to refer to these problems. With regard to the financial aspect of this arrangement there is a need for the chairman, Mr. Parker, to come forward by the end of this month with detailed options and financial proposals for tenants of the LSAs. They must know as soon as possible where they stand so that they can work out whether they want to take up any of the options.
I also believe that there is a case for Barclays bank especially and the other commercial banks adopting as

constructive an attitude as they can. I do not think that too much should be offered in the way of Government guarantees for the future. Having sold to tenants the marketing organisation and their own holdings, the way forward is by means of such preferential financial arrangements that they start off well rather than having a continuing contingent liability to the taxpayer. I should not like guarantees, but I hope that the initial capital and financing arrangements reached in co-operation with this major clearing bank will be as preferential as possible.
Although I do not agree with the substantive nature of the amendment, the hon. Member for Harlow has done the House a service in giving hon. Members an opportunity to express the reasonable concerns of their tenants, and I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to redress some of them.

Mr. Mark Hughes: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens) for raising this topic and for the way in which he moved the amendment. I assure the House that the Opposition support the amendment, especially the general tenor that more time and consideration for the problems facing these tenants over the next few weeks and months is required. At the moment, they are desperately insecure and face a most uncertain future.
I trust that the Minister will be able to lift some of that uncertainty and give tenants some sense of security.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith): I join hon. Members on both sides of the House in thanking the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens) for raising this matter. I am aware of the concern that he expressed. It is a concern that has evoked sympathy and understanding from a number of hon. Members. The opportunity to have this short debate has been extremely useful.
As my hon. Friends the Members for Devon, West (Sir P. Mills) and for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) said, it is important to have in mind the basis of the decision to wind up the Land Settlement Association Ltd. There has been general and individual dissatisfaction expressed recently about the work of the LSA. However, among certain individuals and perhaps more on some estates than in others, there is concern about the fundamental decision. I understand that, and I think that we would all be surprised if a decision to wind up a body that had existed for a considerable period did not lead to some concern and anxiety, if not opposition. But, even among those who think that in principle this is the right course to adopt, it puts a question mark over the future. They have been aware of the arrangements in recent years. Now they face a period of uncertainty about the future, even though they support the proposal in principle.
I understand the motives and the feelings expressed by the hon. Member for Harlow. I am aware that both he and the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans) have received a number of genuine representations and expressions of view, and I am sensitive to the points of view that they have put forward.
We have to go back to the basis for the decision. Given the dissatisfaction that my right hon. Friend explained in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester earlier this month, the decision taken about the future of the LSA and its estates was not reached lightly. It was taken after very careful consideration and study by and discussion with the new chairman of the association, Mr. Parker.
I am grateful to those of my hon. Friends who support the decision. Having made it, we have to decide the best way to carry it out. There is no desire to carry it out in an insensitive, ineffective or inefficient manner. In winding up the Land Settlement Association we want to ensure that proper consideration is shown to those people who are anxious about their livelihoods. I assure the hon. Member for Harlow that we looked at the timetable for carrying out this measure to see whether it would be better done in the short or long term. For reasons that I shall explain, we decided that it would be better if it were carried out in the short term.
I recognise that a timetable with a date of 1 April 1983 is demanding. We want to carry out this winding up in a way that is satisfactory not only to the Government but to all interested parties. We are talking not just of the tenants of the estates but the staff of the Land Settlement Association itself. The timetable that we have put forward was recommended by the chairman of the Land Settlement Association. He is closest to it, having studied the background, and it is significant that he should have made that recommendation.
It is our view that the tenants' best interests would not necessarily be served by prolonging the Government's involvement longer than absolutely necessary. A number of practical matters worried us. I assure the hon. Member for Harlow that there was nothing dogmatic or prejudiced in our decision. It was taken reasonably and sensibly. We felt that if the deadline were extended until autumn of next year, the period for bringing the transitional arrangements into effect would coincide with the busiest time of the year for the tenants and others involved in the estates. It would be during the growing season when marketing is most important. There are other considerations. Within the next two or three months there will be much more opportunity to consult more widely and take the views of the different estates and bring the new arrangements into effect. Those practical considerations persuaded us towards the shorter timetable.
If we manage to put forward satisfactory alternative marketing arrangements after discussions with the tenants and the LSA, we can try to put them into operation before the start of the marketing season, and the tenants will be certain of what is happening. Otherwise they will have to go through the marketing season and face uncertainty at the end as to their relationships with customers, which will be different later. Our view is that on balance it would be better to have a shorter rather than a longer timetable. We did not reach that decision hurriedly or inadvisedly, but on the recommendation of the chairman of the LSA. Having taken that decision, we are extremely anxious to help growers in every possible way to prepare the new arrangements during the next few months.
We have asked the LSA staff to work urgently with growers, and we have asked the central council—although by the end of this period it may be Food from Britain—to be closely involved in any talks and discussions on the formation of new co-operatives. Given the continuing and positive role of the central council and its successor, I am sure that we shall see as much activity as is possible and necessary.
9 pm
I hope that in the next three months growers will be able to make alternative arrangements to market their produce effectively, both in the future and on the time scale that

we have determined. On the information available to me, I believe that that will be possible. I hope that we can stick to the timetable that has been set. We do not wish to continue the uncertainty for longer than necessary. However, there is always uncertainty in transitional arrangements. Having spoken to those directly involved both in the LSA and the central council, we believe that it should be possible to introduce the new arrangements within that period.
There have been discussions between officials in my Department and various representatives of the estates direct with the LSA, but given the strength of the feelings expressed tonight we shall obviously look afresh at any problems that may arise. I shall report to my right hon. Friend the strength of feeling that has been expressed, which I know has been genuine and sincere and stated on behalf of the people concerned.
Quite fairly, the hon. Member for Harlow has not attempted to debate the principle of the decision. He is merely concerned that the decision, once taken, should be carried out in the best and most sensible way possible.

Mr. Newens: And humane.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: And in the most humane way possible. Our objective is exactly the same. We may disagree over the timetable, but at present we see no reason for changing it. I shall ponder on what has been said and on whatever further discussions take place. I hope that this can be done by the beginning of April, because it will have certain advantages and will remove uncertainty.
We want to ensure that this decision is carried out in a satisfactory and effective way so that work on these estates is not disrupted. It is in that spirit that I have tried to respond constructively to a constructive speech from the hon. Member for Harlow.

Mr. Newens: I am grateful to the Minister for what he said about the usefulness of this debate, but I am disappointed with his reply.
As he rightly said, although I am opposed to the idea of selling the smallholdings to the tenants, because I believe that it will prevent new people from becoming small farmers in the way that they did in the past, I did not make that point strongly on this occasion because I am particularly concerned about improved marketing arrangements and we are discussing a Bill which deals with marketing. The time scale that has been set by the Minister militates against the objectives of the Bill. The date fixed, in the opinion of many of the tenants, does not give sufficient time to enable them to make the necessary adjustments. In those circumstances, I should have thought that the least that the Minister could have promised was that he would be prepared to extend the deadline. I ask him again: is he prepared to extend the deadline, or to have consultations with a view to extending it?
The Minister said that extension would not help because the growers would be busy later in the year. I can only tell him that there will be no point in the growers being busy unless they have the marketing arrangements that are necessary to dispose of their produce at a profit when it is actually being produced. If the necessary steps are not taken now, the growers will not be busy, because there will be no point in their being busy.
Furthermore, if the bank does not provide the guarantees which are necessary, some of the growers may


be pushed out of business before the autumn comes. The hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) rightly said that many of his growers have been successful, but I hope that the Minister will recognise that growers in other parts of the country—for example, in Chawston and Potton—are heavily burdened with debts and need an extension of time.

Sir Peter Mills: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the central council cannot work quickly? I assure him that, in the case of a recent problem in Devon, the council worked quickly and effectively in helping with the marketing and assisting a company. I am certain that it will do the same for those growers.

Mr. Newens: I am sure that the central council can work quickly, and I have praised its work in the past. However, I am worried that some of the growers may not get the necessary capital backing that they need to form the new co-operatives which are necessary in the brief time that is available. It is true that the growers who are represented by the hon. Member for Chichester may be in a position to go ahead, but in other parts of the country they cannot do so.
Perhaps the Minister will address himself to the specific matter of the withdrawal of the Government guarantees to the loans from Barclays bank. If Barclays bank insists on calling in those loans, the growers will be placed in an impossible position.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The hon. Gentleman asked me a specific question to which I did not reply. As I understand it, these Barclays bank loans are normal commercial transactions. In fact, the Ministry has not been directly involved in them, and never has been. I shall certainly look further into the matter, although it is not absolutely pertinent to the subject of marketing.

Mr. Newens: I thank the Minister for saying that he will look into the matter further. However, as I understand it, the Ministry has guaranteed some of the loans. I think that there is no doubt about it. I see the hon. Member for Chichester nodding in agreement. In these circumstances, the withdrawal of the guarantee is very damaging. When I moved the amendment, I quoted a statement which came from the meeting between the growers and the representatives of the Ministry on this very point. Therefore, I hope that he will consider the matter seriously.
I am surprised that the Minister said that the date chosen is that recommended by the chairman of the LSA. I do not know the chairman of the LSA, but I am rather surprised

that he should have recommended that date. However, I can say with some authority that, whatever the chairman or anyone else may have recommended, that date is strongly opposed by many growers who believe that it is unworkable. Therefore, I appeal seriously to the Minister to give some better guarantee and promise that he will look into the possibility of extending the deadline. As far as I can see, no hon. Member can gain anything from imposing a deadline which drives men, some of whom have spent their lives in building up a business, into bankruptcy. No one wants to see that happen.
We all claim, and I claim sincerely, to speak for small business men. In those circumstances, it would be utterly wrong for hon. Members who are not personally involved to discard the pleas which have been made. I shall send the letters I have received from growers to the Minister and I assure him that they have not been concocted by people who are just making a political case. Many of the letters express points of view which I would not wholly agree with, but they make strongly the point that the deadline must be extended.
In those circumstances, I hope that the Minister can offer some hope to a group of deserving people who have worked hard. If the Minister is able to give more solid guarantees than he has to date, I shall not need to press the amendment to a vote.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I believe that the timetable that we have chosen is correct. We do not want any of the problems or difficulties which the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens) has described and I do not believe that the timetable that we have chosen will create such difficulties. Moreover, I have said that I shall consider what has been said tonight. I cannot go further than that.
I am disappointed if the hon. Gentleman cannot accept my assurances, particularly as I have never questioned the integrity of the letters; I accept them and their strength of feeling. I shall consider what the hon. Gentleman has said, and if we cannot achieve our objectives we shall reconsider the matter. As the hon. Gentleman has questioned the timetable, I wish to confirm that it has been recommended to us by the chairman of the LSA.

Mr. Newens: In view of the Minister's statement and the fact that I shall pursue this matter in other respects, and although I still feel disappointed that the Minister has not been more forthcoming, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — Overseas Development and Co-operation

The Minister for Overseas Development (Mr. Neil Marten): I beg to move,
That the draft Asian Development Bank (Third Replenishment of the Asian Development Fund) Order 1983, which was laid before this House on 6th December, be approved.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): With this we shall consider the draft African Development Bank (Subscription to Capital Stock) Order 1983 and the draft International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (1979 General Capital Increase) Order 1983.

Mr. Marten: The purpose of the orders, which were laid before the House on 6 December, is to authorise subscription payments to the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development and the African development bank, in the latter case as part of the procedures to enable us to join that bank, and a further contribution to resources of the concessional Asian development fund.
At the start of the debate on the Commonwealth Development Corporation Bill, about a week ago, I warned the House that, because of its technical nature, portions of the ensuing speech might well be tedious. I regret that I must repeat the same warning tonight. Behind the haze of technical jargon and statistics, however, it is worth bearing in mind that these institutions all have a direct impact on the developmental prospects for the poorest countries and the poorest groups within those countries. However, I must put certain facts and figures on the record, and I am afraid that my speech will be slightly tedious.
Before describing each one in detail, I shall make some general comments about the institutions, their place in the developmental scene and our attitude to them. The World Bank—IBRD—was established in 1945, and the two regional development banks in the 1960s. They are an integral part of the international economic system, and of course the World Bank has a pre-eminent world-wide role in development. All three institutions stimulate cooperation between developed and developing countries. The United Kingdom was a founder member of the World Bank and of the Asian development bank and intends to join the African development bank now that its membership has been opened to non-regional States. All three have broadly the same developmental objectives as our aid programme—to help the poorest countries. Our role in these institutions and, in the African case, in the concessional African development fund, reflects our historical and current political and commercial interests in the countries covered by their activities.
These institutions have played, and are playing, a continuing role in the provision of development assistance to developing countries, including the Commonwealth. We have strongly supported them in the past and will continue to do so, within the limits of our financial constraints. One advantage of such institutions is that they are generally regarded as politically neutral. They can therefore exert an influence on development policies in their member countries.
The purpose of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (1979 General Capital Increase) Order 1983 is to authorise an increase in our subscription to the capital stock of the World Bank. The United Kingdom has voted in favour of an increase in the bank's capital, subject to the approval of Parliament for our own increased subscription.
I should say something about the World Bank and our attitude towards it. No one can doubt that it has become the premier international institution for Third world development. It now has a membership of more than 140 countries, and has accumulated unrivalled technical resources. Furthermore, it possesses knowledge, gained first-hand, of the whole range of developing countries' problems and an operating experience that is second to none.
In the year ending June 1982, the bank lent $10,330 million. We welcome the bank's emphasis on the key and central aim of alleviation of poverty and its concentration of resources in key sectors, such as agriculture, rural development and energy. We also note with satisfaction the importance that the bank attaches to maintaining its extremely high rating in the world capital markets and the strict observance of its role in supporting only developmentally sound projects.
I turn in more detail to the draft order. The bank finances its lending operations primarily from its own borrowings in the international capital markets. A substantial contribution to the bank's resources also comes from its retained earnings and flows of repayments on its loans. The 1979 general capital increase, when fully subscribed, will enable the bank to expand its capital base to about $80 billion. Only 7½ per cent. of the nominal capital value of shares is required to be paid in. Of this,¾ per cent. is to be paid in current United States dollars and the remaining 6¾ per cent. in £ sterling. Contributing members may subscribe from time to time before 1 July 1986.
The United Kingdom's allocation of shares was 24,336. However, extra stock was needed to accommodate claims for shares from several other countries, and we agreed, in the circumstances, to relinquish one half of our allocated shares. That was reported to the House by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office on 7 May. This step was generally welcomed. It also reduced our financial obligations from about £140 million to about £70 million for the paid-in element. We are therefore now seeking parliamentary authority for payments not exceeding the sterling equivalent of $1,467,886,680 in current United States dollars. Of that, $11,009,150—¾per cent.—and the sterling equivalent of $99,082,351–6¾ per cent.—will be paid in. The hon. Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. BrocklebankFowler) is looking a little puzzled. The balance will be callable.
Most major donor countries, including the United States, have now taken the necessary steps to accept their additional share allocations. The United Kingdom intends to continue to play its full part in support of the World Bank's programme of assistance to the lower-income developing countries. I therefore commend this draft order to the House in the knowledge that the United Kingdom's financial support is necessary and will be well applied.
I should like now to deal with the African development bank order. The purpose of the order is to authorise our subscription to 7,525 shares in the African development


bank's capital stock, thereby allowing us to join the bank. I told the House on 13 May 1981 that, subject to Parliament's approval, the Government had decided to seek Britain's entry to the bank when the existing regional members had finally ratified changes admitting non-regional States. That moment has now come.
The bank was set up in 1963. Membership of the bank was originally restricted to African States, but since 1973 the United Kingdom, along with other donor countries, has been a member of the associated African development fund, which provides finance on very soft terms to regional members of the bank. Our membership of the bank and the fund reflects our long-standing interest in Africa, especially independent Commonwealth countries.
So far the bank's operations have been on a relatively small scale. Last year it lent about $323 million. Its growth has inevitably been held back by difficulty in tapping finance on the capital markets, which it can then on-lend for long-term development. Broadening its financial base is the major reason why regional member States decided to open up the bank to non-regional States.
The bank's board of governors passed resolutions in May 1979 to amend its articles of agreement to allow non-regional countries to become members, and to increase the capital stock of the bank to the equivalent of about $6,110 million to allow for the admission of non-regional countries.
The resolution amending the articles of agreement was finally ratified by regional members on 7 May 1982. The text of the amended articles of agreement was laid before the House in July 1981 as Cmnd. 8284. The United Kingdom and other non-regional countries have since been asked to accede to the bank in the hope that the "new" bank would come into operation on 1 January 1983.
Negotiations for the entry of 21 non-regional States—all members of the African development fund—took place in 1978 and 1979. Those negotiations provided for one-third of the bank's increased capital stock to be allocated to non-regional States. Under that allocation the United Kingdom was invited to take up 10,832 shares to a total value of £63,451,367, of which 25 per cent. was to be paid in over five years and the rest was to be callable.
These are the figures given in paragraph 5 of Cmnd. 8284. I hope that the hon. Member for Norfolk, North-West is happy with those figures. It seems that he has taken a note of them.
During the delay in ratification of the amended articles of agreement, however, several other countries, which now contribute to the African development fund but which were not party to the earlier negotiations, expressed a desire to join the bank at about the same time as the other non-regional countries. These included India, Portugal, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.
As there were no shares left unallocated in the non-regionals' one-third of the proposed increased capital stock, we were informally approached by Portugal, one of the would-be new founder members, to see whether we might be prepared to relinquish some of our allotted shares in their favour. We decided to help all the new donors in the fund to join the bank from the outset with at least a small shareholding.
The Government have therefore decided, subject to Parliament's approval, to take up 7,525 shares, instead of

10,832, at a total value of £44,079,721, of which £11,019,930, or 25 per cent., is to be paid in. The rest will be callable capital. Our new allocation will give us about 4·3 per cent. of the non-regional shareholding, in line with our share of the African development fund.
We understand from the African development bank that the shares we relinquish will probably be offered to India, Portugal and Saudi Arabia, which have expressed their satisfaction with our decision. Our subscription must be paid in five annual instalments. We expect to deposit the first promissory note for about £2·2 million, for immediate encashment, in this financial year. This cannot be done till our membership becomes effective. We expect to complete the necessary ratification procedures early in the new year, and an Order in Council will be laid before the House separately to meet privilege and immunity obligations which we will accept on joining the bank.
I am sure that hon. Members will understand that, as we are not yet a member of the bank, we have had no influence on the bank's existing policies. I personally hope that the bank, as other such institutions do, will over time give greater emphasis to agriculture and the production of food, to energy requirements and to social infrastructure—and here I shall not forget the interest of certain hon. Members, which I share, in population control. We welcome the opportunity to become a member of the African development bank.
The purpose of the Asian development fund order is to authorise an increase in our payments to the soft lending arm of the Asian development bank. Once again, I shall first briefly describe the work of the fund itself and then give essential details about the order.
The Asian development fund was established in 1973. Some 90 per cent. of its resources have gone to the bank's poorest member countries since 1976. Our support for the fund again reflects our long-standing ties in Asia, not least the Commonwealth countries.
I now turn to the details of the draft order. The initial funding and the first two replenishments of the fund have provided a total of nearly $3,500 million for commitment between 1973 and 1982. Of that, the United Kingdom's commitments total £89·6 million, of which nearly £21 million has so far been disbursed.
Negotiations for the third replenishment of the fund's resources, to cover the commitment period 1983 to 1986, started in July 1981 and were successfully concluded in April 1982. The contributing countries have agreed to provide a total of $3,214 million. That is nearly 50 per cent. more than the size of the last replenishment. Subject to parliamentary approval, our own share will be £71,943,310. That is 4·14 per cent. of the total replenishment agreed between the developed member countries. This share is more closely related to our relative voting power in the bank than was our share in the last replenishment.
The proposed replenishment and its terms and conditions were approved by the board of governors of the Asian development bank on 30 July 1982. In accordance with the agreed governors' resolution, our subscription must be paid in four annual instalments.
The bank hopes that contributing countries' parliamentary procedures will be completed in time for the replenishment to become effective by 31 May 1983. Our payments will be in the form of the deposit of non-interest bearing notes encashable on demand. We expect them to


be encashed over several years. It is only at that encashment stage that there will be a call for funds from the aid Vote.
I commend these three orders to the House.

Mr. Guy Barnett: The three orders give the House an opportunity to discuss the conduct of the three banks concerned, the policies that they are pursuing, the relevance of those policies to the current world financial and economic crisis—especially as it affects developing countries—and the needs of the developing countries themselves. The debate is also an opportunity to suggest reforms or changes that hon. Members may wish to put forward.
I thank the Minister for his explanation and I, for one, will study his remarks with care. By his own admission, he made a rather tedious speech about the orders and the need for them. It hardly reflected the tone of the speech made by his right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to the Royal Commonwealth Society a week or two ago. The Foreign Secretary excitedly told his audience
Our foremost aim must be to encourage faster economic growth in the poorest countries of the World. The moral and humanitarian case for concentrating our efforts in those countries is overwhelming.
The exhilaration that we all felt when we heard those words was not aroused by the speech of the Minister for Overseas Development today, nor can it be justified by what is happening. As the Minister knows, in the current financial year, net Government spending on aid amounted to only £950 million, which is 1 per cent. of total Government spending. The drop in aid from the previous year was 11 per cent., which is the largest ever drop in Britain's aid programme. Per head of the population, we spent 35p a week on aid compared with £4·85 on defence. The House should reflect on those figures.
The principal victim of the cuts is, or is likely to be, bilateral aid, which is the easiest to cut. From time to time, the Minister expresses a preference for bilateral rather than multilateral aid. As he admitted at Question Time last February, he cannot escape from multilateral commitments made earlier. I got the impression from his speech that that was his difficulty. The Government are fulfilling commitments, but do not sound over-enthusiastic about doing so. As a result, his bilateral programme is projected to take a steadily reducing share of a reduced aid programme. Will the Minister tell me whether I am right?
Of course, it is not the Minister's fault. It is a result of the cuts imposed upon him by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was accurately described as Mr. Micawber in reverse. He is waiting for something to turn down. To turn down an increase in the overseas aid budget is an act of folly and of blindness. It is an act of folly because the international financial position as it affects the Third world and us is much too serious for such a step. I warn the Government that the Labour Party will strongly oppose any further attempt to reduce our contributions to international bodies such as the United Nations development programme. Such cuts cause untold damage and should be restored. However, perhaps the Minister and I can agree that the European development fund is a disgrace to the name of development. That is the only programme that appears to be the recipient of a greatly increased contribution from the United Kingdom.
There can be no doubt about the crucial role of the World Bank. It is important to see its role in terms of the

economic problems that the world faces. It is no exaggeration to say that the world economy faces catastrophe and that we have very little time to put matters right. Karl Otto Poehl, head of the West German Central Bank, said recently that the entire international and social system now faces its worst threat since the Second World War. The president of the World Bank, Mr. Clausen, has said that the whole fabric of international co-operation may not be able to survive prolonged economic stagnation.
Forty countries are now in arrears with their debt repayments to the tune of $5·5 billion. They include many of the world's poorest countries. The economies of Brazil and Mexico are on the brink of collapse and the Government must now face the dilemma, tinged with a certain irony, of whether to come to Argentina's rescue. For the Government, the truth of the Brandt dictum that we are all interdependent is being amply, almost cruelly, vindicated.
Perhaps the world economic crisis will not come to a head in the sudden collapse of a major debtor nation. Signs are that Governments and central banks find the prospects of such a collapse so frightening that they are reacting speedily, as they did in the case of Mexico, to avert collapse.
Last Wednesday Mr. Peter Rodgers wrote in The Guardian:
The real danger is rather that there will be a chronic series of international debt problems over several years, cumulatively causing a depression which would make the 1930s look rosy.
Most commentators seem to agree about the reasons for the crisis that we are facing. First, the Western banks lent onwards the huge oil surpluses to finance the deficits of oil-importing countries. Third world countries preferred to borrow from them rather than from the IMF because they could do so without accepting strict conditions. That was one reason why, in the 1970s, the economies of the Third world grew faster than those of the developed world.
The second reason is that the monetarist policies pursued by most Western Governments produced a recession of a depth and a duration that the private banks failed to foresee. The result has all the appearances of a major banking catastrophe. Most countries, especially African countries, have no hope of earning enough to pay high interest rates on their loans, still less to service the new loans that they need to keep their economies going and to provide for their increased populations.
According to Mr. Rodgers, Morgan Guaranty, the New York bank, said that new lending to Third world countries outside OPEC in 1981 rose 20 per cent. over 1980. If this year it does not rise at all, those countries' output will be cut by 3 per cent., because their capital inflow would be $50 billion less. Growth in the industrialised countries will be 1 per cent. lower than otherwise as a direct result of the slump in the Third world. Some economists say the reduction could be twice as great.
Later in the article Mr. Rodgers says:
These cuts may not sound large, but they are. The effect of similar falls in growth in the UK economy in recent years has been to produce a deep recession. In the Third world, the social pressures of contracting economies could lead to bloodshed and revolution. And for everyone, including Mrs. Thatcher, hopes of an economic recovery in 1983 could vanish.
The problem is grave and urgent. The World Bank and the IMF have a central part to play. One answer in this deteriorating circumstance—it could be a good deal worse than most people yet realise—is an immediate increase in the resources available to the World Bank. That is, of


course, well beyond the relatively small capital increase that we are debating today. Such an increase would enable the bank to finance continued growth in the Third world. It would also reduce the strain on the private banks, which are increasingly reluctant to lend to developing countries.
Most Opposition Members have had severe doubts about the new president of the bank—Mr. Clausen—following the presidency of Mr. Robert McNamara who made a tremendous contribution to the Third world. It is an interesting reflection that the man whom President Reagan chose to follow Mr. McNamara—Mr. Clausen—is a conservative Californian banker who has obviously been strongly influenced by his experience of the bank's work. He recently uttered the following words:
We urgently need a disciplined expansion of the world economy, to reduce the suffering of unemployment and aggravated poverty.
In an article by Dr. Magnifico, the economic adviser to the Bank of Italy, which appeared in the Financial Times last week, it is suggested that the World Bank should issue special bonds, using the money to grant funding loans to the less developed countries.
The World Bank has a vital role to play in the coming year. The Opposition support the order and hope that the Government, with other Western Governments, will seriously consider proposals further to increase funds to the bank next year.
I shall now deal with the African development bank. I strongly echo the words of the Minister for Overseas Development about the number of African countries that are members of the Commonwealth and with whom we enjoy close relationships and ties. I welcome the Government's decision to become one of the new non-regional members of that bank. But the problems of Africa, the world's poorest region, demand concerted action from both developed and developing countries. Nevertheless, exactly what aid policies are needed for Africa are a matter of controversy.
This is an appropriate time to say a little about the type of policies that the Opposition would like to be pursued. In 1980, the Heads of State of the Organisation of African Unity agreed upon their Lagos plan of action, which was designed to give Africa self-sufficiency and economic integration by the year 2000. Last year, the World Bank issued a report entitled "Accelerated Development in Sub-Saharan Africa: an agenda for action". It was the so-called Berg report.
The Minister will no doubt have read that report. I hope that he agrees that it is seriously deficient and does not carry on the tradition of enlightened analysis which was a feature of the McNamara years at the World Bank. I am not saying that there is not much that is good in the report, but in its recommendations for change, it is weakened by all-too-familiar dogma.
The report rightly says that skilled manpower is Africa's "scarcest economic resource", yet it warns against excessive Government expenditure in basic services such as education. That is an extraordinary statement. Surely future development in Africa will be impossible without increased expenditure on education. Indeed, it contrasts oddly with the view expressed in the world development report of the bank this year. It said:
By broadening domestic, technical and managerial skills, changing the attitudes of farmers and workers, and, it is hoped,

lowering the birth rate, human development offers the prospect that per capita living standards can be improved faster in the 1980s.
That passage must imply the need for a sustained and high level of educational expenditure in that continent.
The Berg report criticised the growth of the public sector in the 20 years since independence yet it ignored the fact that much of that Government enterprise has come about because there was no one else to do it.
A Government cannot sell State enterprises to private capital when there is no private capital to buy them. It is no good lecturing poor nations about the virtues of the market economy when they do not have a market economy.
The report also omits any mention of the past behaviour of private capital in Africa. Examples of excess profits, exploitation of labour, transfer pricing and, in the case of Rhodesia, sanctions busting do not encourage Governments in Africa to trust in private capital.
The report attacks cumbersome African bureaucracies, over-valued currencies and policies that do not encourage export growth, but it shows little understanding of how politically explosive such issues are. I give just one example. Recently, the IMF insisted on the price of sugar in Sudan being increased by 60 per cent. It might have been right from an agricultural or a macroeconomic point of view, but the result in Khartoum was rioting in the streets.
Tanzania faces an extremely serious and precarious foreign exchange and production crisis. In September, Professor Birmingham, the chairman of the British-Tanzania Society, wrote to the Minister asking him to use his influence with the World Bank and the IMF to ensure a favourable outcome to negotiations with Tanzania, which have so far proved abortive.
The Minister was not nearly as forthcoming as he might have been, either in support of Tanzania's case or in giving assurances of additional programme aid to supplement help that would come following an agreement with the World Bank and the IMF. I do not expect the Minister to comment tonight, but I ask him to look at the matter again.
The Berg report is little help to Tanzania. Many commentators have put the position simply: the report is prejudiced against centrally planned economies. Malawi is praised for sustained growth in its agriculture, but there are the usual predictions of disaster for the economy of Tanzania.
The fact that by almost any objective standard—whether GNP per head, adult literacy, health care, infant mortality or life expectancy—Tanzania has performed better than Malawi is ignored. There is a grave danger that such biased assessment will lead to biased policies and that Reagonomics and monetarist dogma will be applied in circumstances where the consequences can only be disastrous.
We have close Commonwealth friends in Asia and our continued membership of the Asian development bank is important. The Reagan Administration's attitude towards overseas aid is perhaps shown most clearly in their refusal to increase their contribution to the ADB. That has forced the bank to cut its soft loan target by nearly $1 billion—£538 million.
A headline in The Observer earlier this year, said
Asia takes fright at Reaganomics".
The ADB argued that it needed a minimum of $4·1 billion over the next four years to help the poorest Asian countries


over the effects of the world recession, high oil prices and the high cost of commercial borrowing. The Americans were not interested. The Observer on 25 October last year quoted an Asian money manager as saying:
The sprinters of Asia, countries like Korea and Taiwanin are already practising Reagan's philosophy. But what about the laggards? What good is the Reagan recipe if you can't control population growth, if your resources are scant, your infrastructure primitive and your Government unstable, if you are too poor to have an entrepreneurial private sector, if you are heavily dependent upon imported energy, if your agriculture regularly falls victim of drought and flood and if you can't get your manufactures past the tariff barriers of the rich?
The debate could have been fairly perfunctory, but current events justify the use of the occasion to draw attention to the troubled economic and financial problems that all of us face. There are opportunities for the Government to act positively and constructively during the coming round of international meetings.
The GATT meeting in Geneva gave little comfort to Third world countries. Next year there will be meetings of the IMF and UNCTAD as well as the World Bank. In addition, as the Minister will know, the pre-negotiations for the conference on the new economic order have got bogged down. I ask the Government to play a positive and constructive role at those meetings. The Brandt commissioners have just met and will report early next year. For three years the Government have failed dismally to rise to the challenge of the Brandt report. There is still time—but not much—for the Government to start to talk and act constructively. It is vital that they should do so.

Mr. Bowen Wells: The hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Barnett) has provoked me in a way which I did not expect from him. His speech was inconsistent with his claim that the Government have continually worked against and sought to reduce aid to and investment in the developing world by Britain.
The orders demonstrate the Government's sincerity in trying to assist the developing world. The hon. Gentleman has totally ignored the good things in the Government's record. He has not examined carefully the World Bank's report on sub-Saharan Africa, which has been universally welcomed. It is regarded as a realistic report, worthy of consideration by all the countries in sub-Saharan Africa, showing a path by which they could find their way out of the terrible conditions in which they find themselves.
The hon. Gentleman's remarks on Tanzania demonstrate the difficulties in which African countries find themselves because of reliance on centrally planned economies.

Mr. Frank Hooley: Is it not odd that the World Bank report, which suggests a market economy in agriculture for African countries, overlooks the fact that no rich country in the world has a market economy in agriculture? In both Western Europe and North America, agriculture is tightly controlled and massively subsidised and directed by the State. A free market system would not work for agriculture.

Mr. Wells: The hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) is right. No successful agricultural economic framework has been developed without considerable Government intervention or some other way of ensuring that the price paid to the farmer is consistent with the production of food in excess of that farmer's local needs.
The report does not state in a dogmatic fashion that the establishment of a market economy in agriculture is essential. It states that a price has to be paid to the farmer to encourage him to produce efficiently, and usually to produce a surplus for the starving people in the towns. There is nothing inconsistent with that in terms of African economies.
The hon. Member for Greenwich failed to point out some of the remarkable achievements of my right hon. Friend in his difficult role as Minister for Overseas Development. I refer to the remarkable de-linking of the International Development Association contributions to the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development—a subsidiary of the World Bank. The British Government led the world into making contributions to the IDA when the United States Government were holding back. It was only because of my right hon. Friend's efforts that the IDA was replenished in the way it was, and he deserves enormous credit for it. That is inconsistent with the picture that the Opposition continually try to paint of the Government not wishing or wanting to see overseas development take place, and trying to limit the reductions in aid in order to make the British economy more prosperous and to make its markets available to Third world countries, so that they can expand their own production and sell goods to Britain. That should be the principal objective of any country.
The retention of the open-door trading policy, in spite of the difficulties that confront us as a result of recession, is paramount if we are to try to help Third world countries, and if we are to help private investment in the Third world from Britain and elsewhere.
With regard to the World Bank, may I ask my right hon. Friend precisely when it is expected that we shall have to pay the large sum of money that he mentioned? Out of which budget can we expect it to be paid? Must we expect our multilateral contribution, as put forward in the ODA budget, to increase to accommodate it? If it is not to increase, what reductions does he propose to make in that budget?
The policies of the IBRD—the World Bank, as it is commonly known—and its structural adjustment loans are a new feature of World Bank lending which take into account the most difficult situation that the bank has had to encounter when making its project loans to various countries throughout the world. Often it has found that the host countries' economic policies have worked against the possibility of bringing about proper development. By that I mean development designed to expand those countries' economies. When they have got into extreme difficulty, the bank has tried to take some action to restructure the option that the host Governments have adopted. The hank has offered valuable financial and managerial advice to the countries concerned in making certain that the options adopted as economic objectives in those countries were such as to be consistent with the project loans being given and with the loans given by private developers and by multilateral developers.
Two contrasting countries in Africa are the Ivory Coast and Tanzania. The Ivory Coast has accepted a structural adjustment loan from the World Bank and has begun to achieve on time the objectives that were commonly agreed between the Government of that country and the bank. Jamaica has done the same. The result has been the disciplining of the economy that—as the right hon. Member for Greenwich rightly claimed in support of his


arguments—Mr. Clausen wished to see adopted throughout the world. It is only through these structural readjustment loans that the World Bank has begun to get a grip on the economies of those countries. That has not been so in the case of Tanzania.
The Tanzanian Government are having to import food because the centrally planned economy has been inefficiently administered. It has been bolstered by aid funds given indiscriminately to the Government. The result is that, although Tanzania is capable of producing its own food requirements, it is unable to distribute the hybrid seed to the place where it is needed to grow the crops because the roads are not in good enough condition, and because the lorries designed to carry the seed are not being maintained, and spare parts are scarce because there is no foreign exchange with which to buy them. That is one scene that can be depicted clearly. It was seen by the Overseas Development Sub-Committee on our visit. That is the factual position in Tanzania. At the same time, the Tanzanian Government are adopting grandiose plans to expand a brand new capital at Dordoma. A second airport is being built at Dar-es-Salaam with French Government assistance. It is an example of French Government bilateral assistance inhibiting the aims of development of the World Bank and other better disciplined aid programmes to that country.
The financial, managerial and administrative structures that the World Bank offers through structural adjustment loans are with the agreement of the host country. This is not being dictatorial, neo-colonial, monetarist or Reaganite. They are simple common-sense policies to produce development. Is that wrong? The World Bank has a vital function to play. It is fulfilling that function while also developing and changing.
A feature of the order is that Britain is taking a smaller share ownership in the World Bank. It is enabling other countries to enter into a share ownership in the World Bank. The hon. Member for Greenwich did not mention that. It is a development that is much welcomed by the Third World. It will produce, I hope, some greater shareholding by the oil rich countries which will expand the total capacity of the World Bank to give greater assistance and will develop the Third world more quickly.
I regret very much that the energy affiliate of the World Bank has not taken off. Its establishment is necessary to devote resources to alternative energy sources in the Third world, although I welcome the pragmatic manner in which the World Bank has adopted some of those aims through its programmes within the central budget and the IDA budget. That is to be encouraged. I hope that my right hon. Friend will try to press forward with the formation of the energy affiliate or the diversion of a greater percentage of resources of the World Bank to that objective.
The shareholding of the African Development Bank is a major advance. We should be flattered to have been asked to become a shareholder in the bank. We can offer enormous assistance to the bank in creating real development—not least in housing, through Shelter Afrique, one of the major programmes of the African development bank, promoted by my friends in the Commonwealth Development Corporation. As in the case of the IDA, we are making a contribution to the Asian

development fund even though our American colleagues are not doing so. This shows the determination of the Government to help wherever possible.
The hon. Member for Greenwich is right in saying that this country, together with the world economy, will not find a way out of the present difficulties unless we adopt a policy designed to expand world trade, to make the monetary base expand and to produce financial stability in our trading relations. We must avoid a yo-yoing of interest rates and exchange rates. There is need to provide a currency in which trade can expand free of the horror of the spectre of bank collapses and the possible recurrence of the depression of the 1930s.
It is only through an expansion in world trade and better financial control over the world's monetary system that we can begin to look towards a fuller employment programme and the Third world can begin to expand again, as it vitally needs to do. We may be in need, but the Third world about which we are talking and which the Government are being generous to and trying to assist is starving. I thank my right hon. Friend for tabling these orders.

Mr. Frank Hooley: The hon. Member for Hertford and Stevenage (Mr. Wells) made a gallant attempt to exculpate his Government in their overseas aid policies. He seemed to overlook one or two points, so I shall remind him about them.
First, there are the severe cuts in aid to which my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Barnett) referred. There is the weird saga of overseas students fees, which has attracted condemnation not only from both sides of the House but from practically all parts of the world. There is the rather petty-minded imposition of health charges on overseas students. There has been the attack on world famous institutions in this country that are concerned with tropical medicine and veterinary services. Only this week in the New Scientist there was a leading article on the plight of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine because its cash is being cut by the University Grants Committee in 1982–83 and it is in severe financial difficulties.
There has been an attack on the scientific units of the ODA itself in terms of manpower and finances, the Tropical Products Institute and the Centre of Overseas Pest Research, all in the name of the Reaganomics. Finally, there was the infamous reply to the Brandt report in which the Government said that aid to the poorest may be all very well, but their dominant concern was with the political and commercial advantages to this country in terms of the aid programme.
Latterly there seems to have been some recognition by the Government that perhaps this collection of policies was politically and electorally not as wise as they thought, so perhaps the Brandt lobby had some impact. Recently it has been suggested that there will be a modest real increase in the aid budget next year. It is not very much, £85 million or £95 million, but it is slightly in excess of the rate of inflation.
On 7 December the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs made a fascinating speech devoted entirely to overseas aid. He made one or two interesting points, one of which was quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich. There is the delightful sentence:
Aid is not always appreciated as it should be.


Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman should have sent that message along to No. 10 to stop the Prime Minister from drivelling on about handouts and taking the cynical attitude to aid that she took not so long ago.
Perhaps more important, in that speech the Foreign Secretary said that at the moment 40 per cent. of British aid is multilateral. He referred specifically to some of the most important multilateral agencies, and one that falls within our debate tonight. He said:
The best are very good and have our full support. The International Development Association … is an example.
The IDA is an associate body of the World Bank, the contribution to which we are discussing, and part of the finances of the IDA in the past 20 years has come from World Bank funds proper. According to the review of the IDA, a fascinating document which was recently published, the World Bank has transferred $1·6 billion over the past few years from its own immediate resources to the IDA.
The IDA is directly concerned with the poorest countries, and over the past two decades of its existence it has committed $26 billion to no fewer than 78 countries for a wide variety of projects. Of that money, $6 billion has been allocated to India.
In 1980, the IDA claims to have met 60 per cent. of the deficits of the low-income countries and 16 per cent. of all the official aid that went to those countries. Eighty per cent. of its contributions have gone to countries where the per capita income of the population is less than $410 a year—less than £250. Its contribution has been very much to the poorest of the poor.
The association is now taking a growing interest in the problems of the smaller countries. Notwithstanding that over the past two decades the largest single recipient has been India, it is beginning to shift its interest and resources more into agriculture and is not exactly turning away from but giving less high priority to very large irrigation projects and turning more to the smaller projects such as the provision of wells and pumps for small farmers.
The IDA is also taking an interest in new priorities. I quote a passage that appears on page xv of the report:
Experience has shown that raising the productivity of the poor means more than providing them with productive assets. It also means increasing their skills and strength through education, health programs and other services. IDA's education lending, for example, has given increased emphasis to primary schooling, as well as vocational and technical training.
However, the report acknowledges that the IDA has had a greater impact and more success in Asia, especially in South Asia, than it has in African countries. We have already heard in this debate of the problems of the sub-Saharan countries. The IDA recognises that, notwithstanding its contribution to many countries in Africa, it has not had the same impact there as it had in Asia. It attributes this to certain institutional problems in African countries and also to the shortage of trained manpower there and has virtually undertaken in the report to concentrate more attention in the future on the problems of the poorest countries in Africa.
When the hon. Member for Hertford and Stevenage (Mr. Wells) was talking about Tanzania, he omitted to mention the massive deterioration in the terms of trade and the fact that some of the basic commodities produced by Tanzania now have a purchasing power on world markets of about one-tenth of what they had a few years ago.
The other interesting feature of the IDA has been its capacity to grow and develop, to shift its resources away

from some of the countries that it helped originally towards those which now are in the greatest difficulty. It has had considerable success in mobilising international finance, but the most grim and important message of the report is that the need for concessional development assistance remains as great as ever in the poorest countries.
The resources of the IDA are part of the totality of the World Bank's responsibilities and efforts. Over the two decades of the association's existence, 30 per cent. of its resources have come from the United States of America. Japan has been the second largest provider, providing 11 per cent. or $2·7 billion, and the United Kingdom has come close behind Japan in third place. For those who may have misgivings about British multilateral aid, it is as well to point out that, for every £11 that the United Kingdom has given to the IDA, we have had £14 worth of procurement orders for goods and services.
The IDA's review of its activities points out that each replenishment of IDA resources has been more difficult than the previous one, and this has resulted directly not, as was said earlier, from the behaviour of the American Government but from the behaviour of Congress, which has refused to appropriate sums required for the replenishment of the various IDA fund-raising efforts. It is probably no bad thing that the role of the United States, proportionately not absolutely, should have declined within the IDA.
I am not convinced that it is healthy for an international body of that kind to be dominated by the contributions of one country even though that country is the richest in the world. I deplore the meanness of the American Congress in refusing to pay up for the replenishment of the IDA. I believe that in the future there should be a greater percentage of contributions by those countries which are now playing a greater role in the world economy such as Japan, West Germany and others. Some of the OPEC countries are already making a generous contribution.
I have already mentioned the evolution of the IDA, with its new emphasis on agriculture and rural and urban development and the importance it places on human resources—education and health—to which the quotation I read earlier refers. IDA resources in those areas have increased from 32 per cent. to 53 per cent. of its effort and are still growing. There is still the problem of the poorest countries. I quote again from the report:
If anything, their needs have grown and their burdens are greater.
They still have to break out from the cycle of extreme poverty. We must remember that the poorest countries are the least credit-worthy and least able to obtain credit and loans from the private banking sector. They cannot attract private capital and their needs must therefore be met by organisations such as the World Bank and its affiliate, the IDA, and bodies such as the African and Asian development banks.
I am aware that the voting power and control of the World Bank, the IDA and the IMF is a highly controversial subject. There are disagreements among some of the Third world countries and some of the richer countries. Originally the United States of America had 27·6 per cent. of the voting rights in the IDA. I assume that it was broadly the same for the World Bank. The United Kingdom had 11·4 per cent. It meant that two countries only controlled 40 per cent. of the voting power in those institutions.
The richer industrial countries, referred to in the jargon as part 1 countries, originally controlled 68·8 per cent. Of


the voting power within those bodies while the rest of the world had to be content with just over 30 per cent. The position has shifted to some extent. The United Kingdom and the United States of America had two-fifths of the control previously. That has been reduced to a quarter. The United Kingdom has about 7 per cent. of the voting power and the United States of America has 18 per cent. Japan and Germany have increased their percentage of the voting power because of their increased contributions. However, the part 1 countries—roughly the OECD countries—still have more than 58 per cent. of the votes while the rest of the world has only 41 per cent.
The pressure for a revision of that balance of power and voting within the IMF, the World Bank and the IDA will increase and the Western world would be well advised, whatever its notional or legal rights, to come to some accommodation with that pressure, otherwise those extremely valuable and important institutions may be discredited.
On the other side, there is a fear that if the voting power shifted too much in favour of the recipients rather than the donors of the fund there might be a lack of power on the part of the World Bank to borrow—for example, in world markets. All kinds of fears have been expressed about the IMF. I am satisfied that, unless some accommodation is reached between the rich and poor countries, the relationships within these enormously important institutions, of which I am a wholehearted supporter, will be damaged.
I welcome the orders in so far as they strengthen the work of the World Bank. That is all to the good. I also believe that the regional banks have a valuable role to play. The Government should bend their mind to the question of control and voting rights. Has any progress been made on the energy affiliate of the World Bank, because that is an important development? I am quite sure that the orders will enjoy the approval of both sides of the House.

Mr. Christopher Brocklebank-Fowler: The SDP welcomes these orders as a sign of the Government's residual commitment to the developing world. The figures we are discussing are substantial but do not in themselves contribute greatly to the solution of the massive problems of international debt and liquidity that face the developing world and which affect our prospects of developing our own economy.
From the figures quoted by the Minister, I could not help but noticing that we appear to have reduced the amounts that we are spending. I believe that the amount to be allocated to the African development bank has been reduced from £63 million to £44 million; that the figure for the IBRD has been reduced from £140 million to £70 million; and that the Asian development bank will continue to receive £72 million, as previously estimated.
In putting forward the orders tonight, the Minister, as he confessed to me in a letter in July last year, has contrived to reduce the annual outflow from the aid budget for these laudable purposes. That achievement does not measure up particularly well to the assertions of the hon. Member for Hertford and Stevenage (Mr. Wells) that the

Government were playing a major part in solving the problems of the international community at a particularly difficult time.
When we last debated the African development bank on 7 July, I suggested that this is a particularly inappropriate way of debating a sum of £186 million. I suggested then, and I repeat it now, that orders of this kind would be considered better by the Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments &c. or the Overseas Development Sub-Committee of the Foreign Affairs Committee so that we could look at the detail of the orders and the way in which these organisations spend the money that we donate to them on behalf of the taxpayer.
In these debates, and tonight is no exception, we have a broad exchange on the principles of aid, the principles of the World Bank, our generosity or lack of it. We never get down to the technical details of the orders. The last time we debated this matter on 7 July, the right hon. Gentleman was kind enough to say in his winding-up speech that he thought that the suggestions were worthy of greater consideration. He said that he would refer the matter to his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House so that on future occasions expenditure of this nature would get better scrutiny than it receives on an occasion such as today when, of necessity, time is short, and when, further, this is not the appropriate forum in which to get down to detail.
However, I should like to mention one element of detail on this occasion. It concerns the African Development Bank Order 1983. When we had the last debate, I had an exchange of correspondence with the right hon. Gentleman. He asserted that when Her Majesty's Government joined the bank he expected to be much more closely involved in the organisation of the institution that manages the fund, and he hoped that that would be beneficial. He said that in the context of the accusation that the disbursement of moneys from the fund had, since its inception in 1974, been particularly slow. I press him again tonight to tell the House that his more active involvement as a director of a fund—or, in his absence, that of the permanent secretary or whoever is the alternative member—will be directed towards speeding up the disbursement of moneys from the African development fund into the agricultural and rural projects. that are its main aim.
At that time, the right hon. Gentleman referred kindly to the attitude of the president of the bank. I was particularly interested to see in South magazine in July of this year the assertion of Mr. Mung 'omba that some of the projects that the bank has financed are undoubtedly "well intented", but that
some of them tend to be larger than the countries themselves can sustain.
I hope that the Minister, in winding up will assure me that the pressure of Her Majesty's Government as directors of the fund will be directed towards bringing forward smaller projects which can be brought to fruition much more quickly in an effort to speed up the rate of disbursement once the House has approved the level of financial support tonight.
I welcome these orders, but I repeat that this is a difficult forum in which to get down to the details of the orders. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will make renewed representations to the Leader of the House to ensure that they are considered in a more appropriate forum in future.

Mr. Eric Deakins: I do not agree with the suggestion by the hon. Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Brocklebank-Fowler) that we should in future consider these orders upstairs, because, being orders, they are not amendable, and because we have always taken orders, including more detailed orders relating to other Department's work, on the Floor of the House.
My main objection to considering the orders upstairs is that they relate to an important topic, and, even though they can lead to what the Minister described as a tedious opening speech, I did not find it so. If one is interested in the subject, one knows some of the background and appreciates what the Minister is saying. In my opinion, the Floor of the House is the appropriate place to consider any matters affecting the relationship between rich and poor countries. That is the most important topic that we can discuss in this House.

Mr. Brocklebank-Fowler: Did the hon. Gentleman also hear me say that I thought these orders would be the subject of more careful scrutiny in the Foreign Affairs Select Committee and that they would be debated in the House of Commons in the light of the more detailed report that that Committee could make to the House? Instead of trying to comprehend the kind of speech that the Minister made this evening, we could have had something in writing to help us to consider the orders.

Mr. Deakins: As a great fan of the Select Committee system and having spent three and a half happy years with my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) and the hon. Member for Norfolk, North-West on the Overseas Development Sub-Committee, I am delighted with any proposal to give Select Committees more power. I suspect that the proposal that the hon. Member for Norfolk, North-West has put forward would require a change in our Standing Orders which would not necessarily be easily given, knowing the powers that be in this place, but I would not object to the hon. Gentleman's proposal.
Wider issues are raised by the orders which we are debating tonight, particularly the IBRD order for an additional subscription—a vast sum of money—to the World Bank. We must place that in the context of the gloomy and pessimistic prospects for the developing countries as set out in the 1982 annual report of the World Bank. The report, on page 19, says:
in 1981 … the overall economic performance of the developing countries was poor.
Then on page 20 it says:
The impact of the recession on their"—
the developing countries—
export earnings, as well as the effect of high interest rates on their debit burden and hence on their capacity to borrow further, undermined their ability to sustain earlier levels of production".
Unfortunately, there are many more parts of the report in that gloomy vein.
The report of the World Bank, unlike the Minister, who appreciates the need to cope with population pressures in the developing countries, not so much plays down such considerations as misses them out altogether. There is hardly a mention in this year's annual report of those population pressures. Yet, strangely enough, because the World Bank is run by some very intelligent people, it is

accepted that population pressures are causing problems because, in the section on the poor countries on pages 20 and 21, it says:
The weakening of the economies in Latin America and the Caribbean, as well as in North Africa and the Middle East, was so extensive that per capita incomes in both regions declined." The reason why per capita incomes declined, particularly in Africa south of the Sahara where they have been declining every year since 1977, is the growing pressure of population in those countries.
We have had several debates in the House on these matters, and it is worth emphasising once more that, although there has been some growth in developing countries partly as a result of the money which the House votes from the British taxpayer to the IBRD and the other development banks, that money is increasingly going merely to maintain growing populations at a very low average standard of living. In fact, the World Bank in its report says that
growth in per capita GNP for all developing countries was a mere 0·2 per cent.
That is after taking account of population growth. Those figures speak more loudly than any speeches in the House.
When the Minister replies, I ask him to say whether, as a result of the orders for an additional subscription to the IBRD, the Government can persuade the World Bank to do what the Overseas Development Administration has done in Britain, which is to introduce a population component into its major aid projects in various parts of the world.
I am not at all certain whether the World Bank does that. If not, the Government, having put their house in order, should suggest to the World Bank that it copy our extremely good example.
Another feature of the World Bank report affects the economic context in which we are debating these orders. It comments on what is happening in rich countries, such as Britain, which makes it clear that the report is written by an international banker—Mr. Tom Clausen.
Page 19 states:
The industrial countries"—
that is us—
realise that they must control inflation if they are to return to a stronger path of growth".
That sentence could have been uttered in any statement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Prime Minister or any other Minister.
It is interesting to note that the World Bank has now caught the monetarist bug. It does not seem to appreciate that by backing that solution in rich countries, it is undermining the very solutions that it proposes for poor countries. There are two examples of that, again from the World Bank's annual report. The World Bank admits:
The effects of the resulting fall in demand"—
the effects of the measures taken in rich countries to control inflation—
have been felt in the economies of the developing countries.
The report goes on to talk about the effect on commodity prices. I found the figures devastating. The report states:
international commodity prices (excluding petroleum) declined by 14–5 per cent. in 1981 compared with 1980 levels and slipped an additional 8 per cent. in the first six months of 1982. The price fall was common to all three major groups of commodities: foods, agricultural nonfood products, and metals and minerals.
The World Bank has not got its act right yet. I hope that a future British Government will tell the House, when renewing the orders, that they are convincing the World


Bank that the solutions that it is advocating in rich countries—the type that this Government are putting forward—are undermining our additional subscriptions to the IBRD. Those additional subscriptions are merely staving off an impending disaster that has been created, at least in part, by the economic policies developed by the rich countries during the past four or five years.
In both rich and poor countries, monetarist remedies are quack remedies for a wrongly diagnosed disease. We shall never get anywhere, unless the president of the World Bank does what Mr. Robert McNamara did when he went to the World Bank in 1972 and 1973 and unless he takes a fresh look at the facts and stops accepting the preconceptions that are all too obvious in certain sections of the World Bank report.
The additional subscription to the World Bank—to the IBRD will need replenishment from time to time. However, we wish to ensure that the money will be spent correctly. I have already mentioned staving off impending disaster and helping to maintain living standards when populations are rising. Neither of them is the right objective if the taxpayer wishes to contribute to raising living standards per head in the developing world. There is less and less prospect of that happening, even with the extra money that will result from the order.
The recession's impact on the operations of the World Bank is becoming noticeable. I promise hon. Members that this will be my last quotation from the annual report of the World Bank. It comes from the section on eastern Africa. It states:
The current economic situation is a matter of concern not only because of hardships it causes among the population, but also because the long-term process of capital accumulation and acquisition of skills has suffered a setback. These difficulties have been reflected in the Bank's activities in member countries, as many projects have faced delays in implementation as a result, for instance, of budgetary constraints.
Against that background, we have a right to ask the Minister to use his best influence, as one of the major shareholders in the World Bank—particularly with the additional subscription—to convince its directors and the officials that the world needs to take a new economic path if the money that we are providing is not merely to stave off impending disaster. We should like more money to be provided, but that is another matter.
I remind the Minister that, although Mr. Robert McNamara, when he went to the World Bank in the early 1970s, was a practical man of affairs, a true conservative, a man who had been the president of the world's largest private enterprise company—General Motors—a man who had been an efficient and effective Secretary of State for Defence under a Republican President, when faced with the facts of world poverty and deprivation and destitution in the developing countries he made a profound statement which will live as long as any statement made by a politician. In that statement in the foreword to the World Bank annual report of 1973 he showed himself to be astonished at the depths of poverty in the world, at the fact that many hundreds of millions of people were condemned at birth to an early death. That famous statement is beautifully written and is surprising coming from a man with such a practical background.
We must all hope tonight that Mr. Tom Clausen will be influenced similarly and will come to the same conclusion. Then, when next we are debating orders such

as these, we shall have better quotations from the World Bank annual report and perhaps even a slightly less tedious speech from the Minister in which he can let his hair down slightly and tell us a little more about the progress being made in improving living standards per head in all the poor countries of the world.

Mr. Tom Clarke: I rise to make some brief and general observations about a debate of great importance, particularly at this time of the year and especially when one considers the interest of the young people of Britain in Third world matters—an interest that I regret to say does not seem to be reflected in the attendance at our debate but which I hope will be borne in mind as we discuss these matters in future.
The Minister, in a most modest way, almost apologised for the speech he made to the House. I did not have the privilege of being present last week during the debate on the Commonwealth development fund, but I did read the Minister's remarks in which he made a similar apology. I hope that he will not regard it as a personal remark when I say that in terms of our contribution as a nation as reflected in the orders and indeed in our interest in these matters, I believe, if I may paraphrase a remark made at a nearlier time, that we have much to be modest about.
The hon. Member for Hertford and Stevenage (Mr. Wells) might, when he reflects on his speech, regret his comment that we are this evening making a remarkable contribution to the problems of the areas under discussion.
I have found nothing remarkable in what has been proposed. It is a minor extension of capital in a part of the world which demands a far greater investment of both public and private capital. That has not been reflected in any of our discussions or in the Minister's proposals. I am sure that the Minister, in his own modest way, would not wish to claim for one moment, as was claimed by the hon. Member for Hertford and Stevenage, that this represents a remarkable achievement by the Government.
Those of us who had the privilege a few weeks ago of listening to the Archbishop of Canterbury on these matters were greatly impressed by the urgency that he attached, and the urgency attached by the Churches in Britain, to the great challenge of poverty in the Third world. All of us from time to time claim achievements for our domestic economic policies when the truth of the matter is that for example, we are, as a nation, entitled only to claim credit for reducing inflation, largely because of the remarkable reduction in world commodity prices to which several hon. Members have referred.
I ask the Minister specifically whether any part of the allocation that we shall be making this evening will apply to the Philippines. If it does, we should bear in mind the growing concern about the denial of human rights in that part of the world and the feeling that the British House of Commons, on behalf of the British people, should be asserting itself and showing that it believes that the sort of things that are going on are an affront to human decency.
We should expect the President of the United States to be as brave as the former President Carter. Instead, we have seen almost an endorsement of the policies that are being pursued in the Philippines, which are repugnant to us all. However, they appear to be condoned by President Reagan. He appears to bear in mind the defence interests which he assumes that his country has.
Our discussions on the Third world can appeal to the imagination of the British people. Even if that imagination did not exist, my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Barnett) was right when he talked about the absence of debate and discussion on the Brandt report. That report was a remarkable document. I am not suggesting that everything it recommended was right. We face industrial and economic problems, but in many parts of the world there is poverty. We ignore the basic theme of the Brandt report and we do a great disservice to those who produced an excellent report.
Some of my hon. Friends had the privilege of attending a meeting at Blackpool which had originally been organised by the late Frank McElhone. Unfortunately he did not live long enough to attend it. It was addressed by Dr. Ben Bella from Algeria, who said something quite profound and worthy of repetition. As he addressed the British people through that meeting he said "Your unemployed are our dead". That is true and that is the challenge. It is a signal that we can recover from our present economic slump and depression and in so doing make a contribution to the Third world.
The problem of poverty in the Third world represents a greater threat to peace than any other consideration, including nuclear weapons. For that reason I am delighted that we have had this debate. I am delighted also to have had the opportunity to participate in it. I hope that we can have other debates before very long on these subjects.

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: I shall not detain the House any longer than have other hon. Members.
I agree that debates such as this are tremendously important. We face many problems in the Western world, such as unemployment, but happily, in the Western world and certainly in Britain, if people are unemployed they face problems but no one starves and no one must suffer the agonies of spirit and family that occur in the so-called underdeveloped parts of the world, for which we are all responsible. To say that we are not our brother's keeper shows that we do not understand that what we call hardship those in the undeveloped world call riches. Our lower commodity prices and the lessening effects of inflation upon us mean starvation to the undeveloped world. If we face problems, they face disaster.
At least twice a year, it is almost cathartic for this House to think about not just our temporary problems but the genuine disasters that face much of the underdeveloped world. We cannot evade that fact in the end. Their population growth, the inflation that always grows apace and the demands of the so-called civilised world upon our riches are so intense that the more we look upon our norm that people shall always be comfortable, the more the possibility grows that millions of people in underdeveloped countries will starve to death.
We compound the problems, because in good times we lend the underdeveloped world short-term money for long-term problems. The debt of those countries has grown by about 24 times since 1950. They cannot repay it now and they will never repay it, because they cannot even afford the interest that must be charged in a modern world.
Britain is doing as much as and more than other countries. However, we cannot go home for Christmas and believe that the problem can be shelved. It is very much like storm clouds that gather on a summer day. They will

grow and the position will become worse. Britain has 3 million unemployed. America, West Germany and France have the highest unemployment in their history. However, those problems are nothing compared with the problems faced by other far-off countries. Unless we can get a positive response from nations on that basis, this generation or the next must deal with misery on black death proportions. Whenever I travel in Africa or South America, I always think that even the poorest in the developed world are wealthy. Unless we preach a better gospel, we shall have the greatest paradox of all—among riches, more will starve and more will die.
Getting that message over points more to the problem than to the answer. I hear people say that they are without this or that, that they are unhappy, that they have not had a foreign holiday this year or that they have not changed their car for 10 years, yet there are many people who have never had a square meal in their lives.
What we do in the House is little. Britain does as much to help as most countries, but it is still pitifully little. When we talk of rescheduling this or rescheduling that, the vast billions in debts now gather, whether it be in Mexico or Brazil, and the time will come when much more has to be done—it may have to be through the IMF or through the World Bank.
We must always remember that our sorrow is other people's disaster. Unless we do more and can persuade the Western world to do more, those people must help themselves. The greatest paradox of all is that the more we reach for the stars, the more we can do great things with electronics and computers, the more our dreams of yesterday become the luxuries of today, the more people will starve and die.
I support my right hon. Friend the Minister. There is much more to do. We must do much more to convince our constituents, otherwise the problem will get worse. The problems cannot be alleviated unless we are more positive about those who are a long way away. We wish the problems to stay there but they will not.

Mr. John Sever: The Minister is fortunate today in that his fan club seems to have turned up. Nobody has spoken against the orders. Nobody has spoken against the spirit in which we consider these matters and the way in which the House tries to make sense of the policy towards the Third world and developing countries that the Minister advances on behalf of the Government.
Several points have been made. I am sure that the Minister will have taken note of them and that they will enable him to reflect—I am sure that he has done so in the past—on the genuine heart-felt feelings of many hon. Members who, as the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Clarke) said, speak for many people outside, especially the younger generation.
We are sometimes at risk in this hallowed place of disregarding what might be the aims, desires and aspirations of younger people who are not normally the most vocal group or those who fill our mail sacks full with letters every day. Nor are they necessarily the most literate section of society. Nevertheless, many young people genuinely want this and any succeeding Government to do rather more in aid of those with the greatest problems in the world. As the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly


Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) said, the tragedy that we think besets us in the United Kingdom is in no way comparable with the tragedies that face the Third world.
I am sure that the orders will command the support of the House. The Minister must reflect on the fact that many of us feel some disquiet. We believe that whatever efforts the Government are making, they are not sufficient to honour the commitment that the Government should have to those in greatest need.
The hon. Member for Hertford and Stevenage (Mr. Wells) compared countries in Africa, their levels of poverty and the ways in which they try to combat them. We do ourselves a disservice if we easily compare one country with another and say that our policy is good, bad or indifferent because it compares favourably with other countries. The problems and difficulties facing African countries are not the same. The geographical considerations in the Ivory Coast bear little resemblance to those in Tanzania. Comparisons do not help much; all those countries need support from those that are richer and able to help overcome problems that seem insoluble to African nations.

Mr. Bowen Wells: When making comparisons, I was pointing out that the World Bank had given a structural adjustment loan to the Ivory Coast, which was gradually getting out of its economic difficulties, whereas that discipline was not accepted by Tanzania, which is not getting out of its economic difficulties.

Mr. Sever: I concede that if the hon. Gentleman wishes to see the argument in that way he has a valid point. Of course, what was presented to those countries may not have been received with the same fervour in both. Perhaps the proposed plan was not the best for both countries. We could debate that all night.
I am sure that we agree that if the countries for which we share a common concern receive the aid and support that we are capable of giving, the situation in all those countries is likely to improve. I am also sure that the hon. Member for Hertford and Stevenage will be pleased to hear that I agree with him about the lack of drive in the development of an adequate energy affiliate of the World Bank. The hon. Gentleman nods; I have won a friend. One of the greatest problems facing the Third world is that of energy supply. Much information is available on what various countries require, and developed countries have a commitment to provide aid—technical advice and assistance and invaluable expertise.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) referred to the way in which money is made available by the World Bank and other institutions. It is necessary to look at the way in which loans are geared. I do not say that we should depart from good husbandry, but there may be opportunities for our representatives on those worthy institutions to argue for a little more flair and imagination in the development of programmes and perhaps we could examine the way in which loans are made, without worryng too much about the gearing ratios.
Hon. Members have mentioned the voting strengths on various bodies. If we forgo some power through a reduction of our voting strength that will lead to a wider dissemination of power in the making of disbursements, and I hope that the Minister will look at that.
The hon. Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Brocklebank-Fowler) mentioned that we had debated disbursements previously. I hope that the Minister will act on the anxiety about the way in which money is disbursed and the speed with which programmes are agreed and money gets to its destination. I hope that he will try to ensure a quicker disbursement of the meagre funds that are available.
My hon. Friend the Member for Waltham Forest (Mr. Deakins) has often advised the House of the extreme difficulties that are faced in the developing world on a range of subjects, and his cautionary remarks this evening concerning population growth and control will have been noted. It is an area that seems not to have received the attention of the bodies that we are talking about this evening. But when global plans of this kind are being made and when propositions are being put forward, reference must be made to, and cognisance taken of, all the various aspects that go to make up the problems that we face in overseas development. Population control is certainly one of the fundamental problems. In certain areas, as the Minister will probably tell us later, we have been somewhat successful in promoting compaigns, but in far too many regions we have not met with much success, and there needs to be a great deal of extra work done in that regard.
My hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie referred briefly to the Brandt report. In what I think was generally accepted by the House as a splendid contribution to our debate, he reminded the House that recently the Archbishop of Canterbury addressed a gathering in London at which my hon. Friend and I were present. The Archbishop was very critical—I am sure that the Minister will have had it reported to him—of the Government's policy. Without putting too fine a point on it, his argument was that we were not doing enough. I think that it is generally accepted in the House by the Minister's fan club that we are not doing enough, and that we should be driving forward a policy that will aid the Third world in a far more meaningful fashion than has hitherto been the case. It will not be difficult to do, because the Minister has available to him an endless amount of research and information which explains clearly and succinctly what needs to be done.
All we need is for the Minister of State to be able to convince the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and one or two other assorted personalities in the Cabinet, to give him more money. That does not seem to me to be too difficult a task for a Minister of such status, and I am hopeful that he will cajole, threaten or bully his colleagues into giving him some money.
I do not think that there is any area of public activity that is likely to receive greater or more growing attention than that of overseas development and the advance of the interests of the Third world. As was said earlier, that problem probably poses a greater threat to the stability of the Third world than most other things that we can think of. I cannot think of anything more devastating to anyone than the prospect of not having a square meal tomorrow and not living through the day.

Mr. Keith Best: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that what a individual country can do—although obviously one wants to see more resources devoted to the Third world, for the reasons that have been articulated tonight—is nevertheless very small in global terms? The


hon. Gentleman has referred on more than one occasion to the fact that we are dealing with global problems. Will he agree that it is incumbent on all of us—and particularly the Government—to try to encourage the maximum contribution from all countries throughout the world so that we can find global answers to such global problems? That is the only way in which they will be dealt with realistically.

Mr. Sever: Yes, I would certainly concede that point. It is right that we should recognise our own difficulties in our own domestic economy and programme our future policies in accordance with them, but it is fair to say that several other countries, such as Holland, do far more for development in the Third world than the United Kingdom does. It may well be argued that our economy is weak and that perhaps we cannot afford the money, but I refer the hon. Gentleman to the contribution made a few minutes ago by the hon. Member for Selly Oak. Some choice phrases were used, such as that the Third world is suffering misery of Black Death proportions. Indeed, it is.
If we are to recognise our own difficulties and put our economy in order—we are told by the Government that that will happen, although some of us are wondering when—part of that improvement must be for the Third world, and will have to go to those in greatest need. If we can promote the economy so that we have a greater impetus, and a bigger gross national product, some of that money must find its way into the stomachs of the starving children about whom we talk.
I am bothered by the thought that even if our economy does not improve substantially, there is a groundswell of public opinion that demands that we do something further, in addition to what we are already doing. That is a tricky problem that we all have to face. We all have to tell our constituents that we are sorry, and know how badly off they are and how they are suffering from economic depression, but somebody somewhere is far worse off, and we want to make a commitment to people such as that.
We can tell that story. The Minister tells it. I know that in his speeches he makes sure that the nation is aware of those demands. To that extent, my colleagues are more than happy to support him. It is not necessary to wait for that burst through in the economy.
To emphasise the commitment of the Labour Party, I point out that we believe that 1 per cent. of the gross national product should be devoted to overseas development and aid programmes. If we were to achieve that, there would be an avalanche of improvements in the schemes and programmes around the world. If we were now contributing 1 per cent., many of the people to whom the hon. Member for Selly Oak referred to as being in dire need would not be in such great difficulties. I offer qualified support to the proposals—qualified only in the sense that they may be not enough. I support the Minister's measures.
I understand that the commissioners are to bring forward an up-dated report on the Brandt report early in the new year. I believe that it will show that under none of its subject headings has there been any improvement since 1978. If that is true, it is a dreadful condemnation, not only of us, but of the developed world. If, after all the debating, and all the public expressions of approval and sympathy for the report, we now find ourselves three years on in a worse position than was first reported, we shall have to look somewhere for improvement. The job of

bringing about an improvement falls to the Minister, and I hope that he wil be able to explain to us how best we might be able to tackle these problems for the future.

Mr. Neil Marten: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. Sever) for a reasonable and reasoned reply. I liked the way that he said that it was so easy to persuade the Chancellor to give money. I hope that the time will never come when the hon. Member has to do that, but, if it should, I think he will find it rather different from the way that he looks at it at the moment
As the hon. Gentleman knows, our aid has been increased next year, although not by an enormous amount. We are on the right type of route, and in the year after, if the hon. Gentleman looks at the White Paper, he will see that there will be an increase again.
We give 68 per cent. of our bilateral aid to the poorest countries, as the hon. Gentleman mentioned. Much of the multilateral aid goes to the poorest, and we are fulfilling that role. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was speaking for his party when he talked about giving 1 per cent. of gross national product on the official aid programme. If he was, I do not know what his target was for the mixture of private and public flows, for which at the moment there is a United Nations target of 1 per cent. and we give 2 per cent., so we are well ahead.
The point of substance raised by the hon. Member for Ladywood concerned the gearing ratio at the World Bank. This was one of the recommendations of the Brandt report. It is laid down in the bank's articles that its total lending must not exceed its total capital and reserves. Any change from this one-to-one ratio requires amendment of the articles. This would need very careful handling if it were not to imperil the bank's triple-A rating in the financial markets, drive up the cost of its borrowing and perhaps reduce its access to funds.

Mr. Sever: I accept readily that it is a very tricky area and one which has to be looked at carefully. However, in my view we have to look at it, and I was trying to get from the Minister the assurance that he would look at that aspect of the World Bank's arrangements to see whether there was room for movement there for us.

Mr. Marten: This suggestion, if not as a result of the hon. Gentleman's intervention, as a result of the Brandt recommendation, will be looked at. I can give the hon. Gentleman that indication—I cannot describe it as a positive assurance. We could act on the lines that he suggests.
The hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Barnett) disappointed me. He kept on referring to cuttings from newspapers which I do not normally read. I got a bit lost. I had never before heard of the authors of those press reports, so I cannot judge their veracity. But I shall get my press department to turn them up, and I shall discover who the authors of those important statements are when I get back to the ODA.
The hon. Member rather dismissed the World Bank's finances as being far too small. The capital base of the World Bank is $80 billion. I do not know what the hon. Gentleman thinks it should be. He dismissed it as being rather trifling. I do not agree with him.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stevenage (Mr. Wells) dealt with the speech of he hon.
Member for Greenwich, and I shall not repeat my hon. Friend's condemnation of it, because time is running short. But the debate went on to that theme about a centrally planned economy, such as that in Tanzania, as against the IMF's sensible and commonsense approach to the Ivory Coast. I come down firmly on the side of the IMF approach, bringing its wisdom and commonsense view to developing countries. It has produced a great deal of good when it has been done tactfully and helpfully.
My hon. Friend also mentioned the energy affiliate, as did the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley), and asked what we were doing to help the World Bank set up this energy affiliate. We have supported the creation of this affiliate as long as it will attract additional finance for energy development, especially from the members of OPEC. At present, the prospects for attracting additional funds from capital surplus developing countries are not great. The bank itself plans to allocate 22 per cent. of its resources for energy projects, and this may rise to 25 per cent., although it will go no higher than that level because of the competing claims of other sectors.
I note the views that the hon. Member for Heeley expressed on the control of voting rights. Perhaps I may be allowed to write to him on the subject. He welcomed the orders, and I was grateful for that.
The hon. Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Brocklebank-Fowler) suggested that the Overseas Development Sub-Committee should study proposals of this kind before they are put before the House. I hope that the Chairman of the Committee has taken note of that. We had no request of that sort, but the hon. Member for Heeley is present, and he doubtless will have noted what the hon. Gentleman said.
The subject of the African development bank speeding up its rate of disbursement was mentioned. By the end of 1981 the bank had disbursed some $656 million out of about $1,649 million of committed loans—a disbursement to commitment ratio of nearly 40 per cent. That compares favourably with the African development fund in which the ratio is about 24 per cent. It is criticised by hon. Members and myself during the debate on the fund replenishment orders in July. We hope that the bank will maintain and improve its record, if possible.
I am grateful and most encouraged by the fact that the hon. Member for Waltham Forest (Mr. Deakins) did not find my speech tedious. It might be tedious to the House, but the subject fascinates me. I note what he said about population control. As he saw in the report, the bank has been doing something about it, but not enough I am afraid. I hope that Mr. Clausen will read the hon. Member's

speech. They have a habit of reading our speeches on the other side of the Atlantic. The hon. Gentleman should not be misled by contrasts in style and rhetoric between Mr. McNamara and Mr. Clausen. I believe that Mr. Clausen and his staff are pursuing the same goals as his distinguished predecessor. The proof will be seen in the annual reports of what the bank does.
The hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Clarke) described a minor extension of capital by the World Bank. Our contribution is the sterling equivalent of $1,467,886,680, which I do not call a minor extension. He went on to refer to human rights in the Philippines. He may have been here during the debate on the Commonwealth Development Corporation last week when he would have heard that matter fully discussed. The poverty of the people in the Philippines has to be balanced against the security position. At the end of the day a judgment must be formed on that balance. That task falls to me and I shall carry it out. His speech was sincere and the sort of speech that his predecessor in the House might well have made.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) raised one of the technical problems involved in any development programme. He referred to educating people in this country about the subject, and I believe that that should be done more and more by the schools. There is no reason why people should not become interested in it while they are young. There are plenty of school teachers to do it and there is nothing to stop them from going ahead and getting the information from the development headquarters in London.
My hon. Friend the Member for Selly Oak showed the real feeling for the humanitarian arguments for aid which reflect the wide beliefs held by many ordinary people in Great Britain. I was grateful both to him and the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie for underlining that so powerfully at Christmas.
Some hon. Members have strayed further than the World Bank and the Asian and African development banks. If I have not answered their points now, I shall write to them, mainly about the ones that are in order.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Asian Development Bank (Third Replenishment of the Asian Development Fund) Order 1983, which was laid before this House on 6th December, be approved.

Resolved,
That the draft African Development Bank (Subscription to Capital Stock) Order 1983, which was laid before this House on 6th December, be approved.
That the draft International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (1979 General Capital Increase) Order 1983, which was laid before this House on 6th December, be approved.—[Mr. Neil Marten.]

Orders of the Day — Legal Aid (Scotland)

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart): I beg to move,
That the Legal Aid (Scotland) (Exclusion of Proceedings) Regulations 1982, a copy of which was laid before this House on 1st December, be approved.
The regulations provide that legal aid will not be available for divorce proceedings which are, or could be, initiated under what has come to be known as the Cowie procedure. Legal advice and assistance will be available instead, if sought by the parties involved in divorce proceedings.
The Cowie procedure will be introduced into the Court of Session on 11 January 1983 by the Act of Sederunt (Rules of Court Amendment No. 6) (Simplified Divorce Procedure) 1982 and will apply to those undefended divorce actions on the grounds of non-cohabitation for two or five years, where there are no children of the marriage under 16 years of age, where no order for financial provision is sought and where neither party suffers from mental disorder.
The new procedure is intended to be simple enough to be genuinely "do—it—yourself", so that individuals will be able to seek a divorce without necessarily needing the professional advice of a lawyer. Nevertheless, should there be any uncertainty about the operation of the new procedure, or doubt about the questions to be answered on the various forms, a solicitor may be consulted under the legal advice and assistance scheme.
The removal of legal aid from actions in the Cowie category will have among its principal benefits the elimination of the need for an often time-consuming and costly assessment of the applicant's financial means by DHSS.
The Scottish Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux has been involved in the preparation of an explanatory leaflet on the new procedure. Both the leaflet and application forms will be widely available through sheriff courts and citizens advice bureaux as well as in the Court of Session. Legal aid will, of course, continue to be available for all other categories of divorce actions in the usual way.
We have given careful consideration to prescribing a higher limit in connection with Cowie divorces. However, after consultations with the legal aid central committee of the Law Society of Scotland, we have not thought that necessary. The committee considered that such a provision was unnecessary and was, indeed, likely to lead to confusion, administrative problems and needless expense to the legal aid fund. It is, however, intended to monitor the position, and if it appears administratively desirable to prescribe a higher limit, further regulations will be made.
The regulations represent a sensible measure to complement the Act of Sederunt so that the savings that the new procedure will bring to divorcing couples may also benefit the legal aid fund. I commend the regulations to the House.

Mr. Donald Dewar: These regulations have a rather unpleasant ring. Exclusion of proceedings is not normally liked by the legal profession—nor necessarily by those who have the future

of legal aid in Scotland at heart. However, on this occasion at least we intend to support the Government. We think it perfectly fair that in the not insignificant category of divorces which have been recommended for a special expedited procedure by Lord Cowie's committee the provision for legal aid should be withdrawn.
The Minister explained the category in plain and succinct language. It is well known to those who follow these matters that the Government expect that between 17 per cent. and 25 per cent. of all divorce actions will be covered by the new procedures Presumably they will be even more streamlined with the first orders under clause 2(2) of the Divorce Jurisdiction, Court Fees and Legal Aid (Scotland) Bill, which is now in Committee. I have no objection in principle to that, leaving the parties who may think of using the Cowie procedures to rely on the legal aid, advice and assistance scheme to get preliminary guidance on what may still be the comparatively complicated questions that can arise. After all, divorce deals with fundamental rights. It is no good coming back later and asking the courts for a capital payment. Once one has lost the opportunity by using the divorce procedures—perhaps the almost do-it-yourself divorce procedures that are being introduced—there is no going back.
Anyone who has studied the new forms—incidentally, I congratulate those who designed them; it is a complicated matter, and they have done their best—will see a number of questions that will puzzle the laymen. There is a number of calm assumptions about giving up rights on which the prudent person would need some guidance and help.
Perhaps the Minister will tell us how much money he expects will be saved by this procedure. That would give us interesting evidence which could be dovetailed into other calculations that have been made. We know from the explanatory and financial memorandum to the Divorce Jurisdiction, Court Fees and Legal Aid (Scotland) Bill that the Government expect from the transfer of jurisdiction to the sheriff court a considerable saving in legal aid in a full year. I believe that the figure mentioned was between £1·3 million and £1·8 million. Presumably, over and above that, there will be a substantial saving from the abolition of legal aid in Cowie-type undefended divorces. I do not know whether the Government know the figure, but I should be interested to hear it. It should not be too difficult to ascertain. We know that in the year to 31 March 1982 divorces cost about £6·1 million, and if we assume that the figure of 17 per cent. to 25 per cent. is right, and the offset on the cost of the LAA3 scheme, presumably the Minister's ever-ingenious advisers will have produced a figure which will be in addtion to the savings which are expected from the transfer of jurisdication to the sheriff court. At a time when divorce is very much in the public eye in Scotland, it would help the House if the Minister would say something about that.
The Minister rightly picked up the point about whether there should have been an extension to the present automatic £40 limit on the LAA3 expenditure. I agree with him, although I expressed some doubts the other day in Committee. I have now 'had the opportunity to consult interests in Scotland, and I have discussed the matter with the Law Society. It takes the view that, for administrative reasons, it would be too complicated to have an automatic extension to a higher expenditure limit for this one


category within the broad range of undefended divorce actions. I take that as a fair comment and make no complaint about the Government's decision.
I understand that in the year to 31 March 1982 there were just over 111,000 applications under the scheme and in only 30,375 of those—27 per cent.—was an extension granted. I imagine that in the case of the Cowie divorces, despite the Minister's refusal to make an automatic extension for reasons which I understand, the practice of applying for an extension will become almost automatic and that the proportion granted will be high. Therefore, in practical terms the difference between the extension of the limit at this stage as a blanket measure and the granting of it on a one-off basis will not be as great as some might imagine.
As I say, this is an interesting and important little experiment which we are partially completing in the regulations tonight. It is a sensible experiment, although the matter is now rather complicated in the sense that Cowie comes in on 11 January with corroboration still retained in the forms and in the procedures. The Minister knows my views on this. We know that as soon as the present divorce legislation reaches the statute book we shall have a change in the Cowie procedures with an order under section 2(2) of what will then be the Divorce Jurisdiction, Court Fees and Legal Aid (Scotland) Act which will remove corroboration from the Cowie subsection of the undefended divorce range. Ultimately, probably in January 1984, we shall have the major change of the extension of divorce jurisdiction to the sheriff court. Therefore, we have a confused overlapping position which will make considerable difficulties both for the legal profession and indeed for those who, unfortunately, will become part of the 10,000 or so couples who will be seeking a divorce in 1983 unless there is a significant and unexpected change in the present trends and statistics.
However, the regulations make sense. We welcomed the Cowie procedures when they came out and we complained about the delay in implementing them. Therefore, it would be ungracious if I were to make too much of a song and dance about them tonight. I do not know whether I am grateful for the support of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram), but I shall be charitable and record his presence at this point.
It is right that we should have a sound warning note at the end of this short debate. Although we are entirely in agreement on these regulations and the withdrawal of this form of legal aid, I do not want the Minister to take that as a trailer for general unanimity on the Government's approach as I understand it and as it has been hinted at in recent speeches. It is important that we should try to extend and improve the legal aid scheme, not to dismantle it in the interests of general Government economy.
Hon. Members may have heard the Minister talk, as he is fond of doing, of value for money, particularly in legal aid. As I am in the mood for handing out compliments, may I say that one area in which the Government have got value for money is from the Scottish Office of Information. We have had more puff pieces in Scottish newspapers about the startling personalities who now adorn the Government Front Bench than we have seen for a long time. Today's Glasgow Herald has a headline:
Softly, softly style of the new Solicitor-General".

There is a large and prominent picture of the hon. and learned Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn), which must be a mistake. In any event, I observe that the present incumbent of the job, the hon. and learned Member for South Angus (Mr. Fraser), says at the end of the article:
In any event, I think it is very much open to question whether the administration of the law can ever be geared to providing a salary opportunity for lawyers.
I do not think that anybody would dissent from that, although it is quaintly put. It is not really open to question whether the law can be so geared—it certainly can. The point is that that never should be. I should have thought that the Solicitor-General might have managed a slightly more definitive view of the matter. I accept that one cannot have the legal aid system geared to suit lawyers and the demands of their bank managers.
Recently a certain theme has run through Government speeches, and I warn the Minister that it is equally bad to say that the legal aid system should be tailored not in the interest of the administration of justice in Scotland, but to satisfy the dictates of an implacable Chancellor of the Exchequer. There is a danger that that may happen in the next year or so if present Ministers have their way.
Perhaps that is an issue for another day. I do not want to depress the Under-Secretary of State, but it is, in fact, an issue for tomorrow morning's sitting of the Committee debating the Divorce Bill. I intend to return to that theme with renewed vigour at about 10.30 am. However, on the narrow point of the withdrawal of legal aid from Cowie undefended divorces, I willingly give our support to the regulations, as long as it is not misunderstood or misrepresented.

Mr. Allan Stewart: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) for having pledged the Opposition's support. Of course, I take the point that his support is for the proposals before us, and does not necessarily carry any implications for other Government proposals. No doubt my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General for Scotland will be interested in the hon. Gentleman's quotation from that very objective and well-balanced article in the Glasgow Herald.
I confirm that when the Divorce Jurisdiction Court Fees and Legal Aid (Scotland) Bill is enacted it will be possible to implement the Cowie procedure in the sheriff court. Of course, we fully intend that that should happen. The hon. Member for Garscadden asked me how much the Cowie procedures would save. I am sure that he will appreciate that it is impossible to give a precise figure, but, given that we expect about 2,000 cases to be taken under the Cowie procedure, we estimate that there will be savings to the legal aid fund of up to about £1 million. However, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will not take me to task if the figure varies somewhat.
The hon. Member for Garscadden referred to the higher limit and I confirm that his understanding of the Law Society's position is correct. We shall monitor that point, among others, and if new regulations should prove necessary, they will be implemented. The hon. Gentleman spoke about introducing the new procedure in the Court of Session before the enactment of the Divorce Jurisdiction Court Fees and Legal Aid (Scotland) Bill. The experience that we gain in the Court of Session will prove valuable before the procedure is introduced in the sheriff court.
I look forward, as always, to listening to the hon. Member for Garscadden in Committee tomorrow morning when we shall deal with some of the wider questions relating to legal aid. There I rest my case for the moment. I commend the regulations to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Legal Aid (Scotland) (Exclusion of Proceedings) Regulations 1982, a copy of which was laid before this House on 1st December, be approved.

Orders of the Day — Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers' Compensation)

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. David Waddington): I beg to move,
That the draft Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers' Compensation) (Payment of Claims) (Amendment) Regulations 1982, which were laid before this House on 16th November, be approved.
These regulations are simple and non-controversial, and I am sure that they will receive a wide welcome, particularly from those who have fought so hard over the years for the victims of such diseases. The regulations are made under the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers' Compensation) Act 1979 and will have the effect of increasing by 40 per cent. each of the payments made under the Act to sufferers, and the dependants of deceased sufferers, who first become entitled to a payment on or afer 1 January 1983.
The current rates of benefit came into operation on 1 Janauary 1980, and the new rates are intended to restore the payments to the value thay had when the original rates were determined.
The Act did not provide for any particular payments, only for the payment of such amounts as might be prescribed by regulations. Consequently there was no provision for regular upratings, but it seems to us only right that there should now be an uprating; and the higher rates will be paid to those who first become entitled to payment on or after 1 January 1983. They will not be paid to those who, although now entitled to payment, have not applied for payment and do not apply until next year for the obvious reason that it would not be right for them to benefit over those who who have made prompt claims.
As hon. Members know, in order to benefit under the Act three main conditions have to be satisfied. First, the applicant must be being paid disablement benefit because of one of the dust-induced diseases that the Act covers. Secondly, every relevant employer must have ceased to carry on business. Thirdly, he must not have brought any action or compromised any claim for damages.
Therefore, a person who is first awarded disablement benefit on or after 1 January 1983, with no relevant employer left, will benefit from the new rates. So is a person who is drawing disablement benefit now but is disqualified under the Act at present because he has a relevant employer but finds that that relevant employer goes out of business within 12 months of the disablement benefit first becoming payable.
We have to date received more than 5,500 applications for compensation under the Act. It is interesting to compare that number with an earlier estimate of about 1,500. Of the 5,500, more than 4,250 have come from people suffering from the diseases to which the Act applies and approximately 1,260 have come from the dependants of deceased sufferers. More than 4,200 applications have been approved and paid at a total cost of £24·8 million.
About 1,200 applications have been rejected for failing to satisfy all the entitlement conditions prescribed in the Act. The majority of those which failed did so because there was still a relevant employer in business.
Hon. Members will remember that the Act was put together in some haste and passed through the House at what might be called a gallop, the then Opposition not wishing to see it killed by the dissolution of Parliament


prior to the general election. It would be unfair to criticise the draftsmen, but the fact that the Bill was introduced on 28 March 1979 and, by agreement, having passed through all stages in both Houses, received the Royal Assent on 14 April 1979 cannot be without significance. I must tell the House that it has not been an easy Act to apply. Nothing has proved more difficult than to decide what the Act means when it refers to a relevant employer being
a person by whom the disabled person was employed at any time while he was developing the disease and against whom he might have or might have had a claim for damages in respect of his disablement.
The problem was obvious. Should we reject an application where a sufferer from one of these diseases worked for fewer than say two years for an employer still in business? Should we reject an application where the sufferer had worked for 35 years in a dusty environment and the only employer still in business had been that person's employer for, say, five years? Could a person really be held to have had a viable claim against a former employer if he had last worked for the employer more than 20 years before he was determined to be suffering from one of the diseases? It is easy to state all the conundrums that are posed by the Act.
We took advice and concluded that, where a person had first been diagnosed to be suffering from one of the diseases prior to the coming into force of the Limitation Act 1963, any action would have been statute barred; and we could take it that there no employer against whom a claim could have been brought and, therefore, no relevant employer within the meaning of the Act.
I confess that that is a somewhat difficult passage, but I remind the House that, though one might criticise the wording of the Act, many lawyers have criticised the terms of the Limitation Act 1963. That Act enabled for the first time the strict time period to be disapplied if, during the time period, the person concerned had no knowledge of the material facts—for example, no knowledge of the fact that he had contracted the disease giving rise to the cause of action. That was the first thing of which we had to take note.
The advice enabled us to approve about 300 cases which had previously been disallowed. That shows our willingness to apply the Act as liberally and sympathetically as possible.
We were advised also that it was not right to say that a person might have or had a claim against a former employer even where the employment did not appear to have made a material contribution to the development of the disease. Therefore, we obtained medical advice about the periods of employment on dusty work which could be considered in the case of each of the disease not to have made such a material contribution. We then felt able to make payments to a further 200 applicants whose claims had previously been rejected.
The time limit for making applications is normally 12 months after disablement benefit first becomes payable. Sometimes it happens that someone applies promptly after he or she has become entitled to benefit, only to be turned down because there is still a relevant employer in business. However, to make sure that people do not lose out by applying just before an employer goes out of business, we review cases at the end of the 12 months during which they could have applied. If they qualify within the 12 months,

we pay them. The determination of claims regulations made under the Act also give the Secretary of State discretion to accept late applications, and we try to use this discretion fairly generously so that, if someone would have been entitled to a payment had he or she applied in time, the claim is generally allowed.
I accept that, despite all these changes and relaxations, some people who have had their applications rejected feel unhappy about the rejection because a relevant employer is still in existence. It must be a great disappointment to them, especially when neighbours with a like disability have received compensation under the Act.
We also accept that there may often be considerable difficulties preventing individuals from bringing actions for damages against former employers even though the former employers are still in business. However, those who drew up the Act did not feel that they could make what would have been a major departure from the basic principle that if there is or has been a right of action against an employer, no compensation should be paid by the Government. I must stress that the Act is not intended and was not intended as an alternative to bringing a claim against an employer still in business. It is intended to help those who are at a disadvantage as against others who suffer injury or contract disease because of their working conditions, because of the long time these particular diseases take to develop and because, by the time they are diagnosed, the employer who is responsible may have gone out of business and any action in the courts is therefore no longer possible.
I should say something about the scale of payments. Some might say that the payments that we make are low when compared with awards of damages in the courts, but it should be remembered that claimants under the Act need not demonstrate that their employers have been in breach of either a statutory or a common law duty. That important difference should be reflected in the size of the payments made. Generally, however, the amount paid is related to the degree of disability assessed and the age of the applicant when a medical board first determines that he is suffering from the disease. Therefore, the award is determined for the number of years of his working life for which he is likely to suffer financially from the disability.
It has been represented to us, especially by the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley), that the system is unfair to slate miners suffering from silicosis who, in general, seem to receive lower awards than, for example, byssinosis sufferers, despite the fact that silicosis is more likely to progress quickly to a higher assessment. The main reason why, on average, they get much less is that their average age at first diagnosis is much higher—58 as against 49 for byssinosis sufferers—and it is difficult to see how one could get away from a scale of compensation related to loss of earnings which took account of how many working years the sufferer has left. In any case, the payment tables are weighted in favour of the lower assessments of disability to make allowance for subsequent progression to higher assessments. As hon. Members will know, to some extent the inspiration was the miners' scheme that had a weighting on the lower assessments to take account of the possible progression to a higher level of disability.
The Act also makes provision for payments to dependants of people who, immediately before death, were disabled by one of the diseases. If disablement benefit was being paid before death but death was not due


to the disease, the dependant receives an amount arrived at by taking the amount that would have been payable to the sufferer if he were still alive, and then deducting from it the amount that would have been payable to him if he had first been diagnosed at the age at which he died. The dependant receives a payment covering the actual years of disability. If disablement benefit was being paid and the sufferer dies as a result of the disease, an additional payment is made in accordance with table 2 of the regulations or, where death is due to diffuse mesothelioma, in accordance with table 2, part C. Finally, if the sufferer was not receiving disablement benefit at the time of death, the dependant can still receive compensation in accordance with table 2 if the sufferer died as a result of the disease and the dependant is in receipt of industrial death benefit.
We shall keep the benefits under review in the light of further changes in the value of money. Whatever the scale of payments, they will never truly compensate individuals and families for the pain, suffering and loss that they suffer, but at least we shall have done something to ease their lot.
I ask the House to approve the regulations.

Mr. Barry Jones: The House will be grateful to the Minister for the patient and helpful way in which he outlined the regulations. We understand his need to amplify the legislation in part, albeit retrospectively. Clearly the Opposition will not oppose what he proposes.
However, a backward look is helpful in an endeavour to place the regulations in context. There were once 20,000 slate quarrymen in north-west Wales—what is now known as the county of Gwynedd. Slate quarrying was once the principal industry. Today all that remains of this bankrupt industry is a handful of jobs.
Slate quarrying was a harsh and demanding industry. One could be 1,500 feet high, perched on a Snowdonia slope, exposed not only to the dust but to the varied elements of harsh weather. If one was a quarryman at Blaenau Ffestiniog, one would work in huge dank caverns, hundreds of feet below the ground, water at one's boots and the chilling darkness above one's head. The quarryman had poor wages and even had to buy his own candles if he worked underground.
At the Llanberis quarrymen's museum today, the tiny hospital bears eloquent testimony to the hazards of the quarries. There are also the surviving widows, who once had but 55p weekly pittances as compensation. Happily, we now have the regulations and the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers' Compensation) Act 1979. I note that since the 1979 Act, 413 payments to sufferers and 152 payments to dependants of deceased quarrymen have been approved. As a North Welshman, I have no doubts about the rightness of that Act and the regulations that followed it.
The slate quarrying towns were tightly knit. Townships such as Blaenau, Bethesda and Llanberis are sociable, well-informed communities with a highly developed sense of justice and fair play. The pity was that those isolated communities had to wait so long for a semblance of justice and compensation. The Government formed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) enacted compassionate legislation.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) played a key role in the compensation story when he was a Minister of State in the Department of

Employment. It was he who went to Blaenau Ffestiniog to meet the ailing quarrymen and their families. He liaised with the Transport and General Workers Union official, Idwal Edwards, and the quarrymen's solicitor, Sir Elwyn Jones as he then was. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) and the then right hon. Member for Anglesey, now Lord Cledwyn, helped to propel the compensation scheme along. Throughout North Wales, there was all-party and community-rooted support for despairing quarrymen and their dependants.
I recollect that it fell to me, then a Welsh Office Minister, to visit Mr. Edwards at his harbourside union office in Caernarvon and Sir Elwyn Jones at his retirement home on the bank of the Menai Strait, to ask whether they would lend their experience and statistical insights to a compensatory project.
It would be wrong to mention only the North Wales quarrymen. The 2,177 sufferers who now receive compensation having worked in the cotton industry, bear eloquent testimony to the risks in that industry. Traditional work in the Gracie Fields cotton towns of the North-West had deadly hazards. There are 412 sufferers and 152 dependants who receive compensation in the Potteries. There are sizeable numbers of people who draw compensation for diseases contracted in the ore mines of Cumbria, in refractories, in foundries and in the tin mines.
The figures are compelling evidence of the neglect, ignorance and misjudgments that accompanied often isolated and sometimes exploitive and greedy regional industrial development. The Act was a sympathetic, beneficial and humane response to often slowly unfolding family tragedies. It must be of additional regret to all right hon. and hon. Members that many of the once thriving quarrying villages and towns are now black spots of unemployment as well as reservoirs of industrial disease. Britain is indebted to those underprivileged communities and no one should begrudge the payments.
The Act has been justified. There have been 5,495 applications for compensation, and 4,229 have been approved. The Labour Government were at their best in enacting the 1979 Act. It was a small piece of legislation, but it gave major assistance to forgotten minorities. It was in key with the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, which was a major milestone in British social history.
The asbestos industry figures tell their own story—35 sufferers and 68 dependants are eligible for compensation, but 81 claims by sufferers and dependants have been rejected. The Minister will no doubt confirm that that is because a high proportion of asbestos-producing firms are still in business.
The asbestos story is worrying. The GMWU national officer, Mr. Frank Earl, predicts 60,000 deaths from asbestos diseases in the next 30 years and the union estimates that 2,000 asbestos victims die each year. The Times recently carried an article by Mr. David Nicholson-Lord who implied that a total ban on asbestos might be the only answer. The millions who watched Yorkshire Television's indictment "Alice—a fight for life" were appalled. The Guardian carried a leading article entitled "The magic, tragic mineral".
Asbestos is not merely a congestant of the lungs; it is also a cruel carcinogen and is associated not only with lung cancer but with mesothelioma, for which no cause other than asbestos has been found.
What initiatives is the Department taking in the asbestos sector and how urgently is it acting? Hon.
Members may recollect the October 1981 debate on the Common Market asbestos directives. The Opposition attempted to amend the Government's motion and we were criticised both by the Government and by the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith). My speech was described as inflammatory, but time has proved the Opposition right. Our stance has been vindicated.
The quality press and television programmes have spelt out in chilling detail the dangers of this "magic, tragic mineral". Not even white asbestos is clear of suspicion. Since the advent of increased media interest and in the wake of opposition and pressure from the Society for the Prevention of Asbestosis and Industrial Diseases, of which my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) is a co-chairman, the Government have been moving faster on the asbestos problem.
I am glad that the Under-Secretary informed me that the EC worker protection directive now includes a provision governing the demolition industry. In the 1981 debate the Opposition highlighted the dangers to demolition workers.
What information can the Under-Secretary give about the trials of automatic counting devices? What action is he taking to give publicity to the potential dangers of asbestos? When will he present new regulations concerning the emission of asbestos from the workplace? What action is being taken concerning asbestos waste tips? Is he surveying the environs of asbestos manufacturing and processing factories?
If the Government will make the asbestos menance a top priority, there will in future be a decline in the necessity to have recourse in the industry, to the provisions of the regulations that we are debating tonight. Indeed, can we be assured by the Minister that work in the asbestos, pottery and textile industries is now far safer than before?
Where does the Minister's Department stand concerning the search for a viable substitute for that dangerous substance, asbestos? What economic and social studies are his Department making of the potential impact of a gradual switch to asbestos substitutes? Has he plans for statutory legislation concerning asbestos? Clearly, asbestos will stay on the political agenda. Asbestos can damage the health of the company that is producing it, as well as the health of the people working with it.
The regulations now before us provide simply for a 40 per cent. increase in the rates of payment to people eligible for compensation. It is an increase awarded under section 1(1) of the Pneumoconiosis (Workers' Compensation) Act 1979, which provided for a payment
of such amount as may be prescribed by regulations".
Thus, an increase in payment could have been awarded at any time since 1979.
Why has the increase come forward now? Why could not the Government have paid an increase earlier in the life of this Parliament, when inflation was considerably higher? The Department of Employment press notice of 16 November argues that the increase—
will restore the payments to their original value".
Of course, the increase is based on the inflation rate since the first payments were made, rather than the date of the Act itself. Why could not the Government pay an increase from April 1979, the date of the Act? Had they done so, a 51 per cent. increase could have been paid—that is to say, the increase in the inflation rate since April 1979.
The Government might demur, but I remind the Under-Secretary of State that the Government, in their first Budget Statement, hugely increased VAT, which, in its effect on the poor and needy, is a tax on spending. The Government have also greatly increased tax concessions to the very well-off.
Is it not the case that since 1979 attention has focused on the managerial problems of the Act—the difficulties of proving that employers have gone out of business—rather than on the rates of benefit? I understand that the most recent estimate of the cost of the scheme so far is £24·8 million. Clearly, the public expenditure impact is minimal and the case for a 51 per cent. increase rather than a 40 per cent. increase is thus the stronger.

Mr. Dan Jones: I enjoyed the Minister's contribution very much, because it brought me confirmation and a great deal of joy.
One Saturday morning a man came to my so-called surgery and collapsed there. Not being a medical man, I did not know what to do for the best, but with the aid of cold water I brought him round. When I asked him "What is the matter with you?" he said "I suffer from pneumoconiosis." That is a familiar disease to me because, to some extent, I suffer from it myself. That man came to me to complain because he was unable to get any compensation. When I went into the case with him, I found that he had really and truly misplaced his own case. I told him to go home, and that I would get in touch with him as soon as I had something definite to tell him.
I found, as a result of getting my doctor to sort out a chest specialist for me, that there was a man in Manchester who was first-class, and had trained in Edinburgh, London and the United States. I asked him to take a patient for me, and I would pay for it. I sent this poor man to Manchester. He had been working in the pits for 42 years, and had a serious case of silicosis.
I asked the man to get evidence from his doctor that he could travel to Manchester, and he did. There, the doctor gave him a signed statement. He was visited by Joe Gormley, whom he asked for assistance, as he asked the NUM man from Barnsley, whose name I cannot remember, and do not particularly want to remember. Neither has reacted positively.
All these people have seen this unfortunate man, and he is rapidly going downhill. After carefully listening to the Minister, it seems to me that if my friend can get his claim established—I see no reason why he cannot—he will be better off. Perhaps the Minister will allow me to send the evidence to him from this highly placed doctor. The Minister can base the judgment as to whether my friend is suffering from pneumoconiosis on that statement.
I can give the Minister a copy of the doctor's statement so that he will understand why I have been so irate for two years. It says:
X-ray of the lungs shows generalised emphysema, with a suggestion of mottling of the lungs with the possibility of grade 1 pneumoconiosis.
This is from a chest expert. When I heard the Minister, I thought about this man, Dan Murray, and I thought that at last there is hope for him with certification of this kind.
If I get all these facts carefully documented and into the Minister's possession, will he judge them? I hope that he will give help to this unfortunate man who for four years has endured this complaint in a chronic form, and yet has


been denied any help on the assumption that he did not have a sufficient percentage. There is evidence given by one of the best lung experts in the country to the contrary.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I thank the Minister for the regulations. They relate to an act that is of great interest to many of us. It is ironic that, although it was the slate quarrying industry that provided the impetus in 1979, after a long campaign, it has been a benefit to many workers in many other industries. That gives us great pleasure—but not pleasure that there are people who need compensation, because this is a suffering that we would all rather did not exist. However, it gives some satisfaction that an Act that has brought benefit to a large number of quarrymen and their widows has also had a wider implication and has been of much greater benefit to other industries than was anticipated. Only 15 to 20 per cent. of the claimants have been quarrymen, which shows how the Act has helped in other directions.
I thank the Minister for the way in which, since he has been reviewing the application of the Act, he has used discretion where it is usable. I realise that in many cases it is not possible to use that discretion and that the way in which the Act was drawn originally has tied his hands too much. However, it has been possible to use discretion in many cases, and the extended use of discretion over the past two years has narrowed the number of cases that have missed out.
There are still cases that miss out. The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Jones) mentioned one category. They are people who are recognised by the boards as suffering only from "slight dust, not amounting to pneumoconiosis"—I have seen those words so many times. The emphysema may be there, the chronic bronchitis may be there, there may be a range of suffering, but it has not been attributed to pneumoconiosis. There is room for medical research to identify more clearly people who are suffering.
Only last week I was given details of a person who in life had not been identified as suffering from dust but who had a post-mortem which revealed that dust existed in his body to a very large extent. I do not want to overstress those cases. They are a minority, but they are a minority who at the moment may be missing out on the benefits available under the Act.
The other category of cases involves people who, as the Minister said, have worked for more than one company. One company may be defunct and the other still operative. The Minister said that he had succeeded in tying up many of the loose ends prior to 1963, but there are people who have worked since 1963 for more than one company. They may have worked for four or five years for a company that is now defunct and for four or five years for a company that is still operative. The company, still operative, says that the dust was caused by the defunct company, and the chances of a case succeeding before the court are fairly minimal, and so the people appear to miss out on compensation. They fall between two stools: the course that existed before this legislation was put on the statute book, through the courts, and the provisions of this Act for compensation. Again, I do not labour this too strongly. The number of cases has been diminished substantially, thanks to the Minister's discretion, but perhaps a few dozen cases remain which come into this category and need to be looked at.
I listened to the contribution of the hon. Member for Flint, East (Mr. Jones) with interest. He spoke of the compassion of the Labour Government for minorities. We were very glad when eventually their compassion found its way on to the statute book, albeit very late in the day. The right hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) did a great deal of work on the Act. But, as the Minister said, the Act reached the statute book in a very hurried period. Had it been possible to pass it in 1974 rather than in 1979 or somewhere in between and with more thought, some of the problems now being encountered could have been avoided.
Those are the lessons of history. There is no point in trying to rewrite history or to reinterpret it. History is there. Those affected by it know that it is there. They know the issues perfectly well.
The increase of 40 per cent. in the regulations may be roughly right, more or less. As the Minister said, money does not compensate people who have lost their health, or even their lives, or widows who have lost their husbands because of the effect of these diseases. Therefore, it is not easy to say that, if the base figure was right, 40 per cent. in addition to it is more or less right now. We cannot say what is right and what is wrong. It is a matter of being as generous as possible in the circumstances.
However, bearing in mind the fact that other social security provisions are reviewed on a regular basis, is not it possible to review this one on an annual basis? Cases are still coming through. I have had half a dozen in the past month or so in my constituency surgery, two of them cases of quarrymen who finished work in the slate quarries at the beginning of the Second World War, and it is only now that the dust has come through. They would be treated as suffering from silicosis rather than pneumoconiosis, but they would still come under the provisions of the 1979 Act. These cases are still coming through, though the industry has largely declined. We have only some 300 quarrymen working in Gwynedd now compared with the 20,000 at the beginning of the First World War. There are still many people who work in the quarries who are identified as having slight dust but who have not been fully recognised by the procedures.
In the coming years there will be a trickle of quarrymen, as well as more than a trickle of men from other industries, claiming under the Act. I hope that the message will go out that people still have the right to claim. Some people were under the misapprehension that the Act was in force for 12 months only. It is in fact in force for 12 months from the time of the determination of the disease. People should always be aware that they have the right to make a claim as soon as they are identified as suffering from the disease.
I have raised with the Minister before the way in which claims are made. Someone who holds back his claim can come in at 20 per cent. or 50 per cent., whereas if he had claimed at once at 10 per cent. he would have had lower compensation. I accept what the Minister says about the time scale of the disease having a different effect. I realise that it is not a matter for regulations, but were it possible to amend the Act by giving the alternative of an earlier age and lower percentage or a higher age and a diferent percentage it might be the fairest way of ensuring that people did not miss out.
I want to refer to two other diseases. One has been referred to and one has not. Asbestosis has been mentioned and I am aware that the EC regulations will tighten the one


fibre per cc standard applicable throughout the EC. Asbestosis worries us a great deal in areas such as Caernarvon where we have a major asbestos factory as well as the experience of the slate quarries. I should be grateful if the Minister would take up with his colleagues the point that if the standard is applicable, as it should be, in Great Britain, it should be applicable equally in other EC countries. There is cause to worry that manufacturing companies in countries such as Italy may not apply the dust standards as rigorously and therefore have an unfair competitive advantage over companies in Great Britain.
Farmer's lung is a disease which is not covered by the primary legislation, although it affects many people. A number of people feel that there is unfairness in relation to farmer's lung. I understand the argument that it develops quickly compared with slate pneumoconiosis, and that the person affected is still in the farmer's employment and can therefore bring proceedings. There are people who still miss out, and if it were possible to extend the primary legislation to include farmer's lung a number of people—not that many but suffering a considerable amount—would benefit from provisions analogous to those in the Act.
I thank the Minister for bringing the regulations forward. I hope that the need for people to receive their benefit, although appreciated by those who receive it, will diminish as the years go by.

Mr. Michael McGuire: I add my congratulations to the Minister and to my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mr. Jones). My hon. Friend was correct to remind the House of the considerable part played by my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) in bringing forward this legislation. It was brought forward in a hurry and it may contain one or two slight imperfections. I think we all know why it was brought forward in such a hurry, but the legislation has proved, and will prove in future, to be most valuable.
The hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) was right to remind us that the Act runs for a continuous period. The 12-month period is determined on the basis of when the person is certifiable.
My hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East rightly reminded us that the quarrymen became the symbol of this legislation. There is no doubt that political considerations at the time put them in the forefront of the battle to introduce the Bill. However, other groups have also benefited and will continue to do so.
Textile workers are one such group. Indeed, the Minister lives in the heart of what used to be the textile industry. Indeed, I think that many textile workers can still be found in that area. Textile workers, foundrymen, people in the asbestos industry and slate quarrymen have benefited and will continue to benefit from compensation in the present form.
Dust reticulation diseases have their genesis in the Pickles case, in which the AUEW pursued a claim on behalf of an ex-miner. As a Member sponsored by the NUM, I know that good things flowed from these curious happenings, even though there was some animosity at the time.
Pickles sued the NCB. The NCB's defence was that it could not be proved whether the man had worked in safe

or unsafe conditions because the pit had closed. As a result, a compromise, out-of-court settlement was reached. Pressure subsequently built up among other miners, who felt that this matter should be dealt with on a common law basis just as the union, with its tremendous record, did in respect of other industrial injuries. There was a long-standing dispute between those who felt that the union should go at the Coal Board hammer and tongs.
Arising from that, there was a tripartite agreement in 1974–75, when the Labour Government came into office, and one of the pre-conditions was that a miner would surrender a common law claim in return for a settlement based on an assessment of the disease and the age at which it was contracted.
I congratulate everyone involved with this legislation. Someone once said that politics is the art of the possible. At the time the legislation was introduced, the Labour Government were seeking to do good work for the country, but they had a non-existent majority. In fact, one of our late colleagues, Tom Swain, the former Member for Derbyshire, North-East, had the misfortune when driving his Mini to be hit by a Coal Board truck, and he died. That meant that we had no majority. We were looking for friends. We found some, at least to sustain us to get the measure through, and I congratulate those who brought it forward.
I had hoped to introduce a modest measure in 1979, because "old cases" are mentioned in the schedule. Everyone knows that "old cases" is a term used to describe those people who many years ago—certainly before the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act 1948—settled their cases on a commuted basis. Written into the folklore of the working class is that a wealthy and powerful insurance company was able to put pressure on an injured workman to settle for what seemed an enormous sum—a few hundred pounds. Today that cannot be done. One cannot settle an industrial injuries case on a commuted basis. I hoped to use the good will towards the quarrymen and other groups at that time to bring in my modest measure, but there was not time. Perhaps it was not popular and glamorous. I still have an interest in such a measure but I do not know whether I would succeed in getting it on the statute book.
The hon. Member for Caernarvon was right in what he said about an upgrading at more frequent intervals than has happened so far. I know that the Minister will want to respond to the debate. I want to stress that this is a most valuable measure. It will run and run. I believe that it will be even more valuable in future for people in the asbestos industry. The Government Whip, the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Thompson), agrees. I believe that his constituency has plenty of these problems. More will develop. I am sure that, at the end of the day, everyone will thank the 1979 Labour Government for bringing forward this measure, which will prove more useful than it has already proved.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: I endorse what was said by the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. McGuire). I am glad to see the right hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) on the Opposition Front Bench, because he played a leading part in piloting the legislation through the House.
It is perhaps essential to take a broader context than did the hon. Member for Flint, East (Mr. Jones). Not only do


we have the NCB scheme as a precedent but there was the rejection by the Royal Commission for civil liability and compensation for personal injury of the original arguments of the slate workers and others who were not compensated.
In a sense, the legislation on which these regulations are based is inserted into what I regard as the unsatisfactory nature of civil liability and personal injury law in the United Kingdom. There is no such thing in Britain as the "no fault" liability that operates in other countries. Therefore, the onus is always on the injured employee to prove liability on the part of the employer when suing for compensation for injury. In the submission that was made and rejected by the Pearson Commission, the commission argued that an exception could not be made in the case of slate workers and others because they were a limited group and that would set up precedents in civil liability law. The argument for the precedents still exists. We need to move to a system whereby it is possible to compensate the employee without having to prove major liability on the part of the employer, at least in the initial stage. There is still an argument for a broader based industrial injury scheme, in terms of both common law and social security, than we now have. Both the NCB settlement and the settlement that we are debating show what is possible in compensation terms and in broadening the existing structure.
As has been said, we have had problems with the existing scheme and the need for an existing employee to be in receipt of disablement benefit or for dependants to be in receipt of a death benefit. The social security test for the existing pneumoconiosis scheme is the threshold for this scheme. The problems relate to the nature of the diagnosis. There are cases of people who do not receive compensation because they are not identified early enough or because there is insufficient evidence of pneumoconiosis by X-ray or other means. Therefore, there is always the problem that there will, because of the failure to diagnose cases sufficiently early and accurately, be a period when compensation will be lost to such people. The problems of diagnosis of the disease still apply to these regulations, as to the broader pneumoconiosis schemes that are available through the national insurance social security system.
The other test is that of the relevant employer. We are particularly grateful for the way in which the Minister and his Department were able to be flexible on that definition. The Minister will remember the deputation of representatives of the trade unions, particularly my union, the Transport and General Workers Union, and their submission, after which he was able to accept a far broader definition so that cases do not fall between the two areas. In other words, there were not cases that would have some kind of legal potential or been available for compensation under the Act.
My impression, from consultation in my constituency and elsewhere, is that there are few cases that now fall between these two points. In other words, there are no cases in which litigation is outstanding which are not pursuable through the courts. Neither are there cases which are not receiving compensation under the Act because of the possibility of litigation under the still existing test of the relevant employer. That is because the Department has been able to identify the meaning of "relevant employer" sufficiently flexibly so that all those whose employers have clearly lapsed under the present

definition may receive compensation under the Act without having to face up to the likelihood of unsuccessful litigation in the courts.
The ground between common law and litigation for the pursuit of compensation cases through the courts and State compensation through this scheme has been narrowed. Here again we are setting a precedent. I know that this may not be entirely acceptable to the Government, but we are setting forth areas for State compensation without recourse to the legal action that is necessary under the present industrial injuries legislation. Other groups that face industrial injury problems, or perhaps will do so in the future, should look at the models that have been established in the Act.
We have already talked about the number of people who have been able to receive compensation. I endorse everything that my hon. Friends have said about the fact that, although initially the impetus for this legislation may have come from State workers, we are well aware of the long-standing argument for compensation that has been deployed in the case of textile workers, asbestosis sufferers, and so on. That the measure has been of broader use has meant that State workers have benefited and are grateful.
There are some dependants who still have difficulty, not so much with their initial application to the Department but in finding sufficient proof of the receipt of disablement benefit where social security records are inadequate. We are grateful to the Department for having accepted various forms of proof, even when the files are not available. In some cases, the cause of death was not sufficiently explicit to allow the payment of death benefit or to qualify under the Act. In the past, the general practitioner or doctor at the hospital has often failed to write down that death was caused by an industrial disease. As a result, disablement benefit was not paid, and there is no possibility of compensation for dependants under the Act.
Clearly, that is history, and it is difficult to re-open cases in which the cause of death was not certified in that way. However, in some cases there may be records of hospitalisation for a disease even though there was no payment during that person's lifetime. I appreciate that there may be problems if there is no clear post-mortem evidence that death was due to industrial disease. However, the family of the deceased has sometimes felt unable to allow a post-mortem and so the evidence is unavailable. There are marginal cases in which dependants have not benefited from the legislation because they did not meet the requirement in the Act.
Because of the nature of the Act, there may still be some grey areas and some claimants may have been excluded. In my constituency, the action group has campaigned strongly. I mention in particular Mrs. Marian Jones, the secretary of the group, and the chairperson Dafydd Yoxall, who both campaigned hard and who have helped the Department through assisting people with their application forms. Our impression is that nearly all the potential cases in the area have been compensated. A gap has not grown between those who could gain compensation through the courts and those who could qualify under the Act.
The legislation involves the difficult area of legislation on industrial injuries and may exhibit many of the contradications inherent in such a legislative framework. We have neither an acceptable basis of common law nor of industrial injuries legislation to cover employer's


liability. Our social security system cannot wholly take up the burden imposed by the rest of the legal system. However, it is not open to us, under the regulations, to propose such wide-ranging changes. It is open to us to say that as a result of the Act and the regulations it has been possible to give a measure of limited justice to members of my family and others who have suffered from this grave industrial disease.
The slate quarrying industry in North Wales housed—or at least roofed—the Industrial Revolution in Britain. The housing and so on that was made available helped to create centres of industry and industrial growth in Gwynedd, which still survive as unique industrial towns set, as the hon. Member for Flint, East said, in the middle of a national park. Those communities also generated through the nature of the communities themselves a commitment to social justice and, indeed, a commitment to Socialism which many of us regard as our political inspiration. The fact is that we have been able, late in our time—this should have been done not in our generation but two generations ago—to collaborate—I say this as someone who was involved in these discussions at the time, not all which have yet been documented—between the progressive sections of the labour and trade union movement in Gwynedd and outside Gwynedd. If we could have the same type of collaboration in other areas of social justice we would do the populations whom we represent far more good. We would also show the possible avenues for change, which are broader than the areas compensated in the Act.
The Act arises out of a background of industrial suffering but also out of a commitment to social justice which was brought about by such suffering. It is also right to record the way in which the rational and enlightened section of the Conservative Administration were able to take the Act of the previous Labour Government and to ensure that it was interpreted in a way that would allow for justice.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: The word "congratulations" has been mentioned in the Chamber several times tonight, as it often is in other contexts, but I cannot agree with the way in which my hon. Friends and others have used it. Welcome though the measures were, they came too late. The regulations come too late—not too late to be of help, but later than they should have been. On occasions the House collectively congratulates itself when it does not deserve it. Perhaps I am casting aspersions on Members of all parties, but, from my experience of constituents who come to see me about these matters, that is a fair comment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mr. Jones) mentioned my name in connection with the Society for the Prevention of Asbestosis and Industrial Diseases. I am a humble supporter, not the chairman. The chairman of that organisation is my noble Friend Lord Plant. Much is owed to the society's indefatigable secretary, Mrs. Nancy Tait. In this respect, I should also mention Mr. Max Madden, the former Member for Sowerby, who was also heavily involved in the work of that society.
Diffuse mesothelioma, which is mentioned in the regulations, is commonly called asbestosis. Unfortunately, unlike the tragic example of north Wales,

where it is a diminishing problem as we have gladly heard from hon. Members tonight, asbestosis is a growing problem. One of our difficulties is that we do not know to what extent it will grow, but grow it will. I shall return to that point.
The regulations will apply particularly to laggers, dockers and workers in asbestos production industries. As is well-known, firms involved in insulation and lagging often go out of business. Dockers often transfer from one firm to another. Therefore, many of them will come within the scope of the regulations under discussion.
There are, of course, problems because of the proof that is necessary. It will come as no surprise to the House when I say that concern about the working of the panels is well justified. I should like the Minister to examine one aspect, even if he cannot reply to the point tonight. Will he ensure that where there are coroners inquests or post-mortems, some of the findings get back to the panels conducting the investigations. There is a feeling—perhaps it is unjustified, but I think not—that many of the findings of those panels are too narrow. So, even when the employer has gone out of business, the person concerned, or his dependants, is or are not able to benefit from the regulations, and certainly not from the updating of figures that we have before us today.
There are doubts about the degree of research into the spread of asbestosis in the body. Electromicroscopes are now a possibility. There is fear about the effects of the disease on the chest and related organs and about the way in which asbestos fibres can find their way into all parts of the body, possibly through the blood stream. We do not know enough about the effects of asbestosis.
It would not be in order to go into environmental risks, but the Minister knows about them. I do not believe that the Government have considered these issues sufficiently coherently and comprehensively.
There has been insufficient mention of the way in which sufferers from these diseases impinge upon their relatives and dependants. Money can go some way to ease the lot of those who see their dear ones changing from week to week and almost from day to day before their very eyes, but it behoves those of us who are fortunate not to have contracted occupational diseases to ensure that companionship and various psychological factors are taken into account.
I have in mind the work of St. Joseph's hospice in east London. I do not know what we would do without that institution in east London—an area where hundreds, if not thousands, are dying from the effects of asbestosis. The ministrations of that hospice are not purely physical. There is an outbridge to voluntary organisations which can assist. They can do as much or more than the financial arrangements in the regulations.
One of the most tragic difficulties concerns those who are forced to resort to the courts. Where the issue is in doubt, sufferers, who are visibly and clearly in physical degeneration, have to resort to the courts. They may do so with the help of unions. It is a good thing that the unions will help them. Sometimes the issue is in doubt, and frequently such cases are settled out of court. There is often not commutation, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. McGuire) said, but the award of a lump sum. I question whether that is good enough. I know that I am opening up an issue that goes wide of the regulations, but I think that in passing we should at least question whether


recourse to legal proceedings, when the employer is still in business, is a right and proper way of dealing with claims for compensation for these terrible diseases.
I understand that asbestosis makes its presence known at any time between 20 and 30 years. It may be sooner or it may be slightly later, but that is the time scale after exposure by the sufferer. It can sometimes happen very quickly. When that happens and there is recourse to the courts, we should ensure the availability of emergency legal aid.
There is also a problem for relatives. Families are sometimes involved. For example, in the past men have come home with asbestos on their clothes. Even a few years ago men at the docks told me of "snowball fights" with asbestos fibres. That used to happen because the risks were not known. It is not clear that the Government have yet formulated a coherent response to these interlocking factors that I have mentioned only briefly.
If he has not already received them, the Minister will no doubt receive comprehensive documents from the interested societies. We look to his Department and to related Departments to produce a coherent response to a terrible social risk that will almost certainly soon be upon us. Instead of one Alice fighting for life, there could be tens of thousands. We hope that there will not be, but it is the Government's responsibility to look to the future and to prepare for and take action accordingly.

Mr. Waddington: Something of the spirit of Christmas seems to have descended on the House tonight. I wish only that plenty of the spirit of Christmas will descend upon those who must suffer from these diseases. It has been an impressive debate, because many of those who have spoken have played a part in trying to make a contribution towards the alleviation of suffering in this area. I do not wish to be slow in paying tribute to the work done by the right hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker). All of us who have heard him speak in the House are aware of the depth of his experience and the debt that we owe to him because of his great knowledge of the subject.
The hon. Member for Flint, East (Mr. Jones) also made an impressive speech, again referring to the terrible trials and tribulations of quarrymen in the old days who had to buy their own candles. At least we can today say of our troubles that great progress has been made since those days. The hon. Gentleman referred to the programme "Alice—a fight for life" and asked what initiatives the Government were taking about asbestos. This is not the right time for me to tell him, because if I did I would go far beyond the time when the debate must end. However, we have already made it clear that regulations will be brought forward in the near future to deal with the licensing of insulation and coating with asbestos, the prohibition of spraying, reinforcing the voluntary ban on the use of blue asbestos, and the lowering of the control limits. On top of that, the Health and Safety Commission announced some time ago that Sir Richard Doll, who is an acknowledged expert in the subject, will carry out a detailed study of the latest medical evidence. That will be of great help to us in deciding how to proceed.
It would be more sensible if I were to write to the hon. Gentleman about automatic counting methods—there is a wealth of information about that—substitutes and their economic impact, and publicity of the dangerous

emissions from working places. Although I would dearly wish to become involved in a debate about such matters, we do not have time.
The hon. Member for Flint, East asked me why the 40 per cent. increase is being brought forward now. I am not shy to admit that much of the early years of this Administration were taken up with working out how to apply the Act. If one contemplates the administrative problems in deciding what was meant by a "relevant employer" and the fact that we had to take legal advice on the matter, and then seek medical advice on how long one could be exposed to dusty conditions in an environment in order to make one liable to contract a disease, one can understand why our energies were not directed as early as they might have been to providing the machinery for regular upratings.
The rates were not set by the Act. When one considers the 40 per cent. increase, one should not consider the increase in the retail price index between April 1979 and now. It would be more realistic to consider the increase in the retail price index from the date when the original regulations came into effect, 1 January 1980, and now, or the autumn of 1979, which must have been about the time when the existing rates were first set. Between October 1979 and November 1982, the retail price index increased by 38·4 per cent. Therefore, the 40 per cent. does not seem too unrealistic.
I am sorry that the hon. Member—I nearly said my "hon. Friend"; it would not be inaccurate to say so, although he sits on the Opposition Benches—for Burnley (Mr. Jones) is not still here. He has been a fine constituency Member and I am sorry to hear that he is retiring at the end of this Parliament. He described the case of a miner. If I heard the hon. Gentleman aright, that miner might be covered by the miner's scheme. The hon. Gentleman might be well advised to proceed in a direction other than that which he proposed. No doubt he will read Hansard tomorrow. I am happy to examine any documents that he has at his disposal and then do my best to advise him as to whether he ought to approach the Department of Health and Social Security or to take some other action.
The hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) was kind enough to thank the Department. I must be frank—the thanks ought to go to the Department far more than to me for having set Ministers on the right track. It has helped us to direct our energy in those directions where we could best use our discretion. He is right when he says that much room for medical research remains. He mentioned the problems of those who have worked for more than one company.
If someone has worked for one or two companies for a short time, we would probably not find that the person for whom he worked for a short time was a "relevant employer" but his chances of succeeding in a court with an action for damages for negligence against the employer for whom he worked for most of the time might be fairly good.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about the possibility of regular reviews. I promise that we shall give that full consideration, although I cannot make any commitment. We have done our best to publicise the right to claim from the time of the first determination. The figures are evidence of the fact that the message has got through. Many people have applied.
The hon. Gentleman was worried that other countries may not be applying the same standards as we apply,


especially with regard to asbestos. He has every right to worry. That is why for a long time we struggled to try to get agreement in Europe and to get the two directives that would have meant harmonisation of safety standards throughout the EC. It was only because such slow progress was being made that eventually, in the late summer of this year, we decided that, in certain respects at least, we had to make progress on our own.
With regard to farmer's lung, the hon. Gentleman posed the question and then gave the answer. It is slightly different. The disease develops quickly. I am afraid that we have to work within the framework of the Act, at least for the time being, and that farmer's lung does not come within its scope.
I was interested in what the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. McGuire) said about Pickles' case and the origin of the miners' scheme which, in its turn, gave birth to the present scheme. He also called for more frequent upratings. I shall bear that strongly in mind.
The hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Thomas) was sad that the United Kingdom has still not progressed to a state of affairs in which there is no-fault liability. Such liability would not help those people whom we are helping under this scheme. It is no good having no-fault liability if there is no employer to fix with the liability although he has not been at fault. The hon. Gentleman was right to draw our attention to the fact that there can be problems in the identification of a disease, but it is presumably at about the time when a disease is identified that a person begins to suffer a physical disability and a loss of earning capacity. It is a question of diagnosis corresponding with the time when he can no longer so follow his employment or work as fully as previously.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the case of a person who dies, with the cause of death not being clearly stated and there being no determination leading to the payment of industrial death benefit. We refuse to pay only if there has been a determination by a pneumoconiosis board that the person is not within the scheme. If there is not such a determination, we are willing to look at any evidence and we try to be as liberal as possible. Hospital notes and the like are not discarded; they are looked at with any other available evidence.
I knew about the great interest of the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) in asbestosis. He was right to point out that coroners' verdicts sometimes do not coincide with the decisions of boards. That causes anxiety,

but determining the cause of death is seldom straightforward, particularly when numerous pathological conditions are present, and experts of equal standing often come to different conclusions. In addition, a pathologist is required to produce information to help the coroner reach a conclusion on the cause of death. Therefore, he will record the presence of any condition that he thinks may have had a bearing on the death. On the other hand, the job of the pneumoconiosis medical panel is to determine whether pneumoconiosis caused or played a material part in a death.
People sometimes try to draw a distinction between the number of statements on death certificates showing that people may have died of pneumoconiosis and the number of dependants who have received benefit. That is a false analysis, because we do not know in how many cases there are dependants or how many dependants have claimed.
I hope that I have dealt with the bulk of the issues raised by hon. Members——

It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business).

Question agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers' Compensation) (Payment of Claims) (Amendment) Regulations 1982, which were laid before this House on 16th November, be approved.

Orders of the Day — STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

NORTHERN IRELAND (CRIMINAL INJURIES)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 73A (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.).
That the draft Criminal Injuries (Compensation) Amendment (Northern Ireland) Order 1982, which was laid before this House on 25th November, be approved.—[Mr. Thompson.]

Question agreed to.

NORTHERN IRELAND (PARLIAMENTARY CONSTITUENCIES)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 73A (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.).
That the draft Parliamentary Constituencies (Northern Ireland) Order 1982, which was laid before this House on 23rd November, be approved.—[Mr. Thompson.]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Education Act 1980 (Appeals Procedure)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Thompson.]

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I am pleased, even at this early hour, to have the opportunity to raise the question of the appeal procedure under section 7 of the Education Act 1980. The procedure was established to deal with the problem that arose when parents were dissatisfied with the school that their child was allocated by the local education authority. In some areas there were serious problems of popular and unpopular schools already in existence, but the real importance of the new procedure was in dealing with schools whose intakes were to be reduced as part of the local education authority's positive plan for falling rolls.
Sadly, when the 1980 Act went through Parliament, very little time was given to discussing the appeal procedure or the rules for appeal. The Government were too keen to trumpet the virtues of giving parents more choice and did not want to emphasise that some people would be denied choice, while the Opposition were more concerned to illustrate the impracticality of encouraging choice. The result was that a new type of tribunal was created, with little discussion. Since then the details have been filled out by Government regulations and circulars. I hope that the Minister will tell us how he feels they have worked in their first year, and whether next year the problems will be fewer or greater. Could the Government, in the next few months, give guidance to local authorities to improve their work?
The Minister may believe that things have worked well because it appears that few people have been bitterly upset. He may be able to tell us how many parents are still keeping their children away from school this year, as compared with the past five years, because the parents are so dissatisfied. I suspect that the number is rather fewer, but I believe that the optimism could be misplaced, since the vast majority of families were satisfied with the old system, and most authorities did not last year try to reduce the size of their schools. Once they start to reduce the size of their schools, and particularly of their popular schools, a very different picture may emerge.
The new procedure affected only a small number of people. Of those who appealed, I have had no complaints from those who were successful, but from the majority who lost their appeals I can find no one who felt that he got justice.
I should like to describe the problems that arose in Stockport, because I have some knowledge of them and because I believe that Stockport took particular care to follow the Government's guidance. I should also like to thank the director of education and his staff in Stockport who discussed individual problems with me in the summer and have more recently discussed the whole procedures. Given the problems, I think that Stockport did well with the new procedures, so I want to spotlight them merely to illustrate the problems with the system.
Stockport had its own appeals procedure, which had worked well for many years, and most people to whom I talked in Stockport felt that the old system was less complex and much fairer. With regard to children of

primary school age in Stockport, there was only one appeal against the allocation, and it failed. It may be that very few parents realised that they had a right to appeal against the allocation of the school at primary school age. I believe that in Stockport most parents are satisfied with—even quite proud of—their local primary school and do not want to send their children to a different school.
At primary school age there has been one beneficial effect in Stockport. Since Stockport can no longer operate a feeder school policy from the primary schools, we do not have the situation in which parents trail their child to a distant primary school because they believe it is a feeder school of a secondary school to which they want to get the child.
With regard to the transfer from primary to secondary school, in Stockport there were 4,266 pupils, and, very pleasingly, 4,121 got their first choice school, 145 got a school other than their first choice, and 90 of them appealed against the decision. About 2 per cent. of the secondary school children were involved in an appeal, and of those 31 were successful on appeal—about a third.
The problem that most parents have put to me goes along these lines—"We were going to send our child to such and such a school. We were told by all sorts of people, including the Minister, that we should be good parents and specifically make a choice of school, and if we did not we were not doing our duty." The schools sent prospectuses, and often the parents discussed with the child which school he would like to go to, and they then made a choice. They then did not get their choice. They felt that the appeal was a waste of time, and were upset. Now they know everything that is wrong with the school to which they have to send the child, and even the head teacher knows that the parents are sending the child there only reluctantly or under protest.
The second problem is that if one feels that one has no choice, one tends in the years before one's child goes to school to argue, press and push the council to try to make the school into a good one. On the other hand, if one thinks that one has a choice, one may start to look at the faults of the school and by talking to other parents create an unfair atmosphere of discontent about a school in the neighbourhood.
This summer I found myself in the odd position of discussing with a parent the question of allocation, and I was told that everybody knew that the school in question was a poor school. When I pointed out that two of my children went to the school, my constituent not only backed off, with embarrassment, but also began to think that if I was prepared to send my children there, the school could not be too bad.
In reality, the school is much better than that, hut, of a group of parents half had got their child into one school and the other half had been refused, and the consensus of those people was that one was a good and one was a bad school. They did not have much evidence.
The next problem is not one that those of us who served on the Committee of the Bill intended to occur. Most hon. Members thought that there would be one appeal for every family and they would argue the case for their child going to the first-choice school, and if that was not possible to their second, third or fourth choice. If they did not want their child to go to a certain school in any circumstances, they could argue on those lines.
In Stockport, the council read the Act correctly—not as we intended, but as the Act is. An appeals panel was set


up for a school, which served for all the appeals for the children denied a place at the school. Each appeal was decided on its own merits. The parents, wrongly, felt that their cases were compared to other cases, but they had no knowledge of the other cases, and so they could not argue that their child had a better case on its merits.
The result was that a family whose first appeal had failed might find that the second choice school had also been filled up following other appeals. Although in theory one could appeal to another school, the chances of success are limited. This problem was even worse for children who wanted to go to schools in different local authority areas, or to come from outside Stockport. Stockport is examining the question of inter-authority movements and trying to change its procedure for next year.
Another problem is that of the questions that could be put to the panel. In Stockport the authority does not give preference to allowing siblings to go to the same school. That is wrong in my view because it causes parents a great deal of unnecessary expenses on things such as uniforms. It also causes problems with holidays and with parents seeing school plays and other events. Parents like to get to know the school and the staff. There are many advantages if children can go to the same school.
However, when the panels in Stockport came to consider this, they looked at the Council's policy and decided that because the council had set out the policy in its admission rules the panels should not question this policy and discourage parents making this kind of argument. It made it clear that it felt that it was its job to see that the council carried out its own rules, and it did not question those rules.
I had also imagined that if places subsequently became available at a school as a result, say, of other children moving out of the area, those children whose appeals had failed might still get places at the school. However, I gather that the Stockport authority believed, on the basis of legal advice, that once an appeal had failed it was not possible to go through the process again and that spare places had to be allocated on the basis of the existing allocation procedure, meaning that the places went to the nearest children who had failed to get places even though they had already accepted places in other schools.
I can see that that has some virtue in that it does not encourage parents to go on up to the last minute hoping that an adverse decision will be reversed. But it seems odd that if a place is available, someone whose appeal has failed cannot take it.
I have also had solicitors complaining to me. They were embarrassed when they were asked by parents to represent them at hearings. They had to charge because their time was involved, but they did not feel that they were the right people to represent parents or children at these appeal hearings.
There are a number of other problems. One is that it was necessary to hear 90 appeals in Stockport. They took up a lot of the time of council officials who had to represent the council at the appeals, and they also took up a lot of the time of the panels. If the problem grows, it will result in administrative strain on the local authorities. It will be difficult to get people to sit on the panels, especially in July and August, which is when appeals have to be sorted out.
There were also difficulties in Stockport because of the presence in the town of one or two single-sex schools. If a council has a policy by which it allocates on the basis of nearness to schools, those children who live close to a single-sex school tend to get more choice than those living some distance away.
I am sure that the Minister is aware that there are many other problems up and down the country. I believe that there was to be a national survey on the way that the scheme worked in its first year. I hope that the Minister can give us a little more information about how those results have turned out.
Will the Minister say whether any parents have taken local authorities to court over the operation of the procedure? I have the impression that some people in Stockport felt that it was such an unfair procedure that they would like to take the council to court but did not feel that they had the necessary financial resources.
What guidance does the Minister propose to give local authorities to make sure that they can improve the procedure for next year, especially if far more local authorities have cut the numbers of children they are allowing to attend their more popular schools as a result of a positive policy on falling rolls? If this was a trial year, it is very important that the procedures should be improved next year.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Dr. Rhodes Boyson): With the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett), I had the privilege of serving on the Standing Committee that led to the appeals procedure. He was an assiduous attender. He was always carefully briefed. I may say that it is a pleasure to see present in the Chamber two other hon. Members who served on that Committee, the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) and my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. Pawsey).
I make a quick reference at the outset of my remarks to the Stockport authority, which has tried very hard to make the appeals procedure as fair and as just as possible. Indeed, the hon. Member for Stockport, North paid it a similar tribute.
I want first to make some general points, then I shall deal with the appeals procedure, and finally I shall pick up as many as I can of the arguments put forward by the hon. Member. He and I have discussed many of these topics outside the Chamber because of our mutual concern about the appeals procedure. Any aspect with which I am unable to deal tonight will be taken up in correspondence with the hon. Gentleman as soon as possible.
An increase in the parental choice of school was the basis of the Act. There was some difference of opinion in Committee as to the extent of parental choice. I have always believed in the maximum amount of parental choice, although there will never be 100 per cent. I understand the hon. Gentleman's remark that people are disappointed when their appeals do not succeed.
There is a similar disappointment for the people who voted Conservative in Stockport, North and those who voted Labour in my constituency. They might ask what the point is in voting. Whatever people may think of the person who represents them, it is a funny system. People vote and then find that they are not represented. If we are to have 100 per cent. success before we do anything, we


shall not have a democratic system in this country. No one will drive home by car, because of the inefficiency of the internal combustion engine.
The point is whether the system is better than anything else that is available. We believe in parental choice and Opposition Members agree with us to a considerable extent. I believe that a democratic society does not simply mean voting once every five years for a successful or unsuccessful candidate; it means choosing where one lives, the work that one does and where one's children go to school. One grows more mature day by day because one is making decisions for oneself.
I believe that parents will co-operate more with the schools that they choose if the values of those schools are the same as values at home. Parental choice has an improving influence on the schools, in the same way that the fact that some of us may be involved in elections within the next 18 months concentrates our minds in fulfilling not just our national duties but those to our constituents. I believe that parental choice of school strengthens the family because parents are playing an important part.
The Act did five things, and the points raised tonight about the appeals system are important. The first concerned the provision of information upon which parental choice must be made. There was agreement on much of that on both sides of the Committee. Secondly, for the first time parents had a legal right to state a preference for a school. Thirdly, the local education authority was compelled to comply with the parents' preference except under three conditions which were laid down. Fourthly, where local authority boundaries are crossed—they are often artificial, as in my area of London between Harrow, Ealing and Brent which were all originally part of the Middlesex education authority—and a pupil is accepted into a school belonging to a neighbouring authority there must be automatic recoupment between the two authorities. That extends freedom.
Fifthly, there was the setting up of an appeal committee which acts independently of those who took the original decision. The Act sets out a number of specific requirements for the appeal committees, including their constitution and the procedures to be followed. Some general guidance of the new statutory framework was given in circular number 1/81 issued in March 1981 by the Department of Education and Science. I hope that the hon. Gentleman has seen a copy. If any hon. Member has not, I shall be delighted to ensure that he receives one.
The hon. Gentleman pointed out that the appeals committee and the working of the Act are the responsibility of the local authority. It is not up to the Government to define narrowly how everything should be interpreted. We established the structure and gave the appeals committees the freedom to make their judgments on local information. We should not tie it down narrowly. We circulated that guidance, and, as the hon. Gentleman knows, it is also subject to the approval of the Council on Tribunals. The local authority associations and the Council on Tribunals subsequently held discussions at which the Department was represented on the detail of appropriate appeal committee procedures. Agreement was reached on a recommended code of practice, and copies were circulated to authorities as far back as August last year. Here again, we shall gladly provide any hon. Member with a copy of the code of practice.
Within the statutory framework and in the light of the guidance offered, it is entirely for individual appeal

committees to decide how to handle individual cases. An essential feature of the new arrangement is that appeal committees are as free as possible to reach the best decisions in the circumstances of individual cases. It would, therefore, be inappropriate for the Department to issue detailed guidance on all these matters.
Similarly, it is for individual local education authorities or governors, as appropriate, to decide the appropriate way in which to incorporate the appeal procedures into their school admission process. Details of the chosen admission and appeal arrangements form part of the information that must now be provided to the parents concerned.
The way in which authorities carry out this duty varies widely. Many authorities already had an established system which they have incorporated into the new system. Over the country as a whole, as well as in Stockport, the number of successful appeals has averaged one third. That shows that the appeal tribunals are doing their job and that this is not a whitewash arrangement. However, in Sutton, the percentage of successful appeals is much lower. Here there is a triple system. One can accept the first offer of school, appeal to the chairman informally or formally approach the appeals tribunal. In the third case, the number of successful appeals is much lower nationally than in Stockport. I am not suggesting that Stockport is adopting the wrong procedures. I am merely pointing out that the procedure varies widely.
The appeals procedures ends with the local authority. There was much confusion about that when the scheme came into operation this year. Many people wondered whether there was an appeal to the Secretary of State. There is not.
However, parents retain the right to complain about the actions of local education authorities and governors in relation to school admissions, as in other matters. In response to such a complaint, it will be open to the Secretary of State to intervene under section 68 or section 99 of the Education Act 1944, but I stress that the scope for his intervention under those sections is strictly limited. It is not enough that he should disagree with the decision taken by the authority or governors. Before he can contemplate any action, he must be satisfied that they were acting unreasonably. The number of complaints that we have received, either from Members of Parliament or direct to the Department, is about only a third of what we received the previous year. Here again, our expectations have been fulfilled.
There have been about 300 complaints this year, none of which has been upheld. Each has been looked at, but none qualified under section 68 or section 99 of the Act.
This scheme has involved extra cost, because it did not exist in certain areas and had to be established. A price must obviously be paid for the benefits gained. Given that fewer complaints have been received, and the fact that parents can express a preference even before children have been allocated a school, our information is that local authorities have been even more responsive to the wishes of parents this year. In that respect it has been successful.
Time is getting on, and I do not want to omit replying to the narrow but important points that the hon. Gentleman raised. There is the matter of the informal survey. It is not a matter of a questionnaire having gone out. The territorial officers in the Department of Education and Science are telephoning their equivalents in the local education authorities for a report of what has happened in their areas.
Later a report will be presented to Ministers. At that stage, we should let the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members who are interested know what the response has been.
The hon. Gentleman asked how many are out of school. We do not know. We did not know before, and we know less now. The hon. Gentleman will remember the long hours that we spent in Standing Committee, when we changed the procedure for compelling children to attend school, putting the procedure more under the control of the local education authorities. As a quid pro quo for more parental choice on one side, it was easier for the local education authority to get children into school. We do not know the figures, but we are asking as part of the informal survey. Again, we shall give the available information to anyone who wants it.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: In the informal survey, how far is anyone asking parents what they think, as opposed to the local authorities?

Dr. Boyson: We are not doing a sample telephone call, like William Buckley, who thought that the first 50 names in the Boston telephone directory would govern better than the 50 elected members of Congress. Clearly, that was an interesting view. I assume that local authorities are doing so. There is nothing that we can do nationally. I do not think that local education authorities would like us to contact parents direct and ask them whether they were satisfied with what was going on in Stockport or Newham. I assume that they are as responsive to their parents as we are to our voters, and that when they report to us informally they will provide us with that information.
As I said, nationally we have had only one-third of the complaints that we had last year. Thirty per cent. of the appeals in Stockport have been successful. There are one or two narrow issues, of which I shall give my interpretation, and I trust that my interpretation is right. If not, we shall correct it. If the appeal is for the first school and the authority has offered a second school, the offer of the second school will continue to hold until the appeal is accepted or rejected on the school of first choice. I believe that that is the correct interpretation. Secondly, if vacancies occur after an appeal has been turned down because the school is full, I am told that there can be a second appeal. I do not want to create more disturbance in Stockport than there may have been, but I believe that a second appeal can be taken up immediately.
We have had a long night, but it is nice to end in this friendly fashion, with smiles from the hon. Gentlemen as happened regularly in Committee. When we introduced the measure, we believed that it would increase parental choice of school, and by doing so would strengthen the family, the democratic society and also improve schools. This is the first year and mistakes will have been made. After the survey has been carried out, I shall willingly inform everyone present of the results and where we can informally point out to authorities that mistakes have been made and ensure that they do not occur again we shall be delighted to do so.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising such an important subject.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at seventeen minutes to Two o'clock.